PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI - core.ac.uk · There were four findings found in this study. The first is that most speaking learning strategies employed by Indonesian EFL

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI






vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like extendt my deepest gratitude to my advisor Bapak Mr. F.X.

Mukarto, Ph.D. for his support, guidance, and criticsm can improve this

research. I would like to thank Bapak Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A., Bapak Dr.

J. Bismoko, as thesis reviewers, and Bapak Dr. E. Sunarto, M.Hum., as my

thesis examiner. Thank you for all suggestions which encourage me in revising

my thesis. I thank to Bapak Paulus Sarwoto, Ph.D., as the chairperson of

English Language Studies.

I would like to thank to Bapak Drs. Akhyanto, Ibu Arini Purwanti,

S.Pd., mas Fitri Alfariz, M.Phil., mba Fitri Alfarisa, M.Pd., and adek Fitri

Alfarisany. As my family, you all give the best for me. They always support

me everytime emotionally and meterially with effort, prayer, love and patience.

I would like to thank to bapak Dr.Ing. Satoto E. Nayono, M.Eng., M.Sc. as

the Director in International Office for giving me permittion to continue my

study. I also thank to the entire family of International Office and Partnerships

Affairs of YSU, ibu Yansri Widayanti, S.Pd., mba Ria Cahyanti, S.Pd,, mba

Astin Nuffika Rois, S.S., mas Aji Abdusalim, S.Pd., mba Ratna Anugerah,

S.S., mba Anggita Ratih P. S.IP., Yusi Nur Cahyadewi, S.S., Reza

Halimah, S.Pd., ibu Lusi Nurhayati, M.Appl.Ling., ibu Dyah Cipta

Setyaningrum, Ed.D., ibu Wahyu Setyaningrum, Ph.D. and ibu Retna

Hidayah, Ph.D.. for all of your support, helps and patience. I also thank to mba

Dita Annisa Johar, M.Hum. for your precious help, my beloved friends mba

Prisilia Putri, S.Pd., and mas Darmanto, M.Pd. I also thank to all my friends

of KBI batch 2015 class C.

Finally, the researcher thanks to all people whom the researcher could not

mention for their contribution during the thesis writing process. Hopefully this

thesis will be beneficial for everyone.

Fitri Alfarisy


viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

TITLE PAGE.... ........................................................................................... i

APPROVAL PAGE..................................................................................... ii

THESIS DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE.................................................. iii

DEDICATION PAGE................................................................................. iv

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY........................................................... v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI........................ vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................ vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................ viii

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................... xi

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................. xii

ABSTRAK.................................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

A. RESEARCH BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 1

B. PROBLEM FORMULATION ................................................................................ 6

C. RESEARCH GOALS .............................................................................................. 6

D. RESEARCH BENEFITS ......................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 9

A. THEORETICAL REVIEW ........................................................................................ 9

1. Theory of Speaking ................................................................................................... 9

a. The Nature of Speaking ...................................................................................... 10

b. The Type of Speaking ......................................................................................... 10

c. The Difficulties in Speaking ............................................................................... 12

d. The Assessment of Speaking .............................................................................. 15

2. Theory of Language Learning Strategies ............................................................. 17

a. Definition of Language Learning Strategies ..................................................... 17

b. Model of Language Learning Strategies ........................................................... 20

3. Language Learning Strategies Employed by EFL Students ............................... 25

a. Ways Students Employed Language Learning Strategies .............................. 25

b. Reasons Students Employed Language Learning Strategies .......................... 30

4. Indonesian EFL Students ....................................................................................... 31


ix

B. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 33

A. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHOD ................................................................ 36

B. NATURE OF DATA .............................................................................................. 38

C. SAMPLING ............................................................................................................ 39

D. DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENTS .............................................................. 40

1. Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 41

2. Students’ Achievements ...................................................................................... 47

E. DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 51

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................... 53

A. RESEARCH FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 53

1. Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by the Successful Students ............ 53

2. The Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by Less Successful Students .. 58

3. Reasons of the Students’ Choices of Strategies ................................................ 62

a. Strategy Awareness ............................................................................................. 64

b. The Importance of English................................................................................. 68

B. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 71

A. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 76

B. IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................................... 78

C. SUGGESTIONS ..................................................................................................... 79

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 81

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 84


x

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Language Learning Strategies for Speaking Skills by Oxford............... 22

Table 3.1 The Distribution of Questionnaire......................................................... 41

Table 3.2 Scaling Scores of the Questionnaire...................................................... 45

Table 3.3 Likert Scaled Strategy Adopted by Oxford (1990)................................. 46

Table 3.4 Correlation between Students‟ Speaking Score and GPA....................... 47

Table 3.5 Students‟ Categorization......................................................................... 48

Table 4.1 Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by Successful Students........... 58

Table 4.2 Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by Less Successful Students.. 62


xi

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Framework for Investigating Individual Student Differences................ 2

Figure 2.1 Learning Strategies Model by Oxford (1990) ....................................... 21

Figure 3.1 Explanatory Design Adapted from Cresswell....................................... 37

Figure 4.1 Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by Successful Students…..... 57

Figure 4.2 Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by Less Successful Students.. 61


xii

ABSTRACT

Alfarisy, Fitri. (2017). Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by Indonesian EFL

Students. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program, English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma

University.

Language learning strategies are activities consciously chosen by learners for the

purpose of regulating their own language learning (Griffiths, 2008: 87). The learning

strategies correlate significantly with the learning success (Dreyer & Oxford, 1994). On

the other hand, employing the effective language learning will improve students‟

achievements. The effective learning strategies are not the preserve of highly capable

individuals, but could be learned by others who had not discovered them on their own

(O‟Malley & Chamot, 1990: 2). On the other hand, Cameron (2001) stated that speaking

is the active use of language to express meanings so that other people can make sense of

them. Speaking skill as one of major in learning language is expected to be mastered by

the Indonesian EFL students. However, some students failed in mastering the speaking

skills. Therefore, this research was conducted to investigate the speaking learning

strategies employed by the EFL students, the strategies employed by the successful and

less successful students, and their reasons in choosing the strategies.

The mixed-method approach which combine quantitative and qualitative anlysis

was employed in this study. There were 183 Indonesian EFL students participated in this

research. A cluster random sampling was applied to determine the participants of the

research. The SILL Oxford questionnaire was adapted in this research in order to find the

speaking learning startegies employed by the EFL students. The interviews were

conducted to get the students‟ reasons in choosing the strategies. The results from

questionnaires and the interviews were presented in form of tables, charts showing the

frequencies and description.

There were four findings found in this study. The first is that most speaking

learning strategies employed by Indonesian EFL students are metacognitive strategies

with percentage 71.6%. The top three highest individual strategy employed by the

students were the paying attention strategy with the mean scores 4.21 and SD is 0.81,

using resources for receiving and sending messages strategy with the mean 3.96 and SD

is 1.00, and self-monitoring strategy with the mean 3.93 and SD is 0.78. The second is

that the successful Indonesian EFL students employed metacognitive strategies as the

most strategies employed with percentage responses 72.7% and the affective strategies as

the least employed by the successful Indonesian EFL students is affective strategies with

percentage responses 56.8%. The third is that the less successful students employed the

metacognitive strategies as the most employed strategies with percentage use 70.9%,

while the memory strategies as the least employed strategies with percentage use 56%.

The fourth was that the students‟ awareness on how important the strategy and their

mistakes were the reasons behind students choices in the speaking learning strategies.

Finally, it is believed that these findings have several significant implications for

encouraging educators and teachers who want to teach speaking since this research

provide some speaking learning strategies employed by the Indonesian EFL students. The

teaching materials or the teaching method can be adjusted with the speaking learning

strategies employed by the students. The findings of this research also have important

implications for students. The students can improve their speaking skills through

applying some speaking learning strategies employed by the successful students.

Keywords: speaking, learning strategies, Indonesian EFL students


xiii

ABSTRAK

Alfarisy, Fitri. (2017). Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by Indonesian EFL

Students. Yogyakarta: Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Sanata

Dharma.

Strategi pembelajaran bahasa merupakan aktifitas yang dipilih oleh pembelajar

yang bertujuan untuk mengatur pembelajaran bahasa mereka sendiri (Griffiths, 2008: 87).

Strategi pembelajaran berhubungan erat dengan keberhasilan mereka dalam pembelajaran

(Dreyer & Oxford, 1994). Selain itu, menggunakan strategi pembelajaran yang efektif

juga akan meningkatkan kemampuan pembelajar. Strategi pembelajaran yang efektif

bukanlah terikat pada individu yang berkemampuan tinggi, namun bisa dipelajari oleh

orang lain yang belum menemukannya sendiri (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990: 2). Di sisi

lain, Cameron (2001) menyatakan bahwa berbicara adalah penggunaan bahasa yang aktif

untuk mengungkapkan makna sehingga orang lain dapat memahaminya. Keterampilan

berbicara merupakan salah satu keterampilan yang harus dikuasi oleh semua pembelajar

bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing di Indonesia. Akan tetapi beberapa pembelajar tidak

berhasil menguasai kemampuan berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris dengan baik. Oleh karena

itu, penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mengetahui strategi pembelajaran berbicara yang

digunakan oleh pembelajar EFL, strategi yang digunakan oleh pembelajar yang berhasil

maupun yang tidak berhasil serta alasan mereka dalam memilih strategi.

Metode mixed-method yang mengkoombinasikan antara analisis kuantitatif dan

kualitatif digunakan dalam penelitian ini. Sebanyak 183 pembelajar EFL Indonesia

berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. Cluster random sampling digunakan dalam penelitian

ini guna menentukan subjek penelitian ini. Penelitian ini menggunakan SILL Oxford

kuisioner untuk menentukan strategi pembelajaran yang dipakai oleh pembelajar.

Wawancara juga dilakukan guna menemukan alasan mereka memilih menggunakan

strategi pembelajaran tertentu. Hasil dari penelitian ini yang berasal dari analisis

kuesioner dan hasil wawancara didajikan dalam bentuk tabel, grafik yang menunjukan

frekuensi pemakaian strategi dan deskripsi.

Terdapat empat hal yang ditemukan dalam penelitian ini. Pertama, strategi

pembelajaran yang paling banyak dipakai oleh pembelajar bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa

asing adalah strategi metacognitive frngan presentase 71.6%. Tiga strategi pembelajaran

yang paling banyak digunakan adalah paying attention strategy dengan mean 4.21 dan

SD 0.81, using resources for receiving and sending messages strategy dengan mean 3.96

dan SD 1.00, serta self-monitoring strategy dengan mean 3.93 dan SD 0.78. Hasil kedua

menunjukan bahwa pembelajar EFL yang berhasil paling sering menggunakan strategi

metacognitive dengan presentase pemakaian 72.7% dan paling jarang menggunakan

strategi affective dengan presentase pemakaian 56.8%. Hasil ketiga menunjukan bahwa

pembelajar yang kurang berhasil paling sering menggunakan strategi metacognitive

dengan presentase pemakaian 70.9% dan paling jarang menggunakan strategi memory

dengan presentase pemakaian 56%. Hasil keempat menunjukan bahwa kesadaran

pembelajar EFL dengan pentingnya strategi tersebut serta kesadaran pembelajar dengan

kesalahan mereka merupakan alasan mereka memilih suatu strategi pembelajaran

berbicara.

Hasil penelitian ini dapat meningkatkan pengetahuan pendidik dan guru yang

mengajar berbicara. Materi atau metode pengajaran dapat disesuaikan dengan strategi

pembelajaran yang digunakan oleh siswa. Melalui hasil penelitian ini, diharapkan para

pembelajar EFL dapat meningkatkan keterampilan berbicara mereka dengan menerapkan

beberapa strategi pembelajaran yang digunakan oleh pembelajar EFL yang berhasil.

Kata kunci: berbicara, strategi pembelajaran, pembelajar EFL Indonesia


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of five sections which are intended to present the purpose

and background of this study. This chapter contains research background, scope

of study, problem formulation, research goals, and research benefits. The

explanation of each section is presented a follows.

A. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

Learning strategies have been a major focus in language studies over four

decades. The main belief is that strategy use contributes to language learning.

Language learning strategies, as one of the important criteria in language learning,

have received an increasing amount of attention not only in terms of their

definition (O‟Malley & Chamot 1990: 1), but also in terms of the factors affecting

language learning strategies (Akbari & Hosseini 2008, in Razmojo & Gazemi

2011: 116). Applied research on language learning strategies investigates the

pattern of effective language learning strategies in order to pave the way for the

students to learn as well as for the teachers to teach them how to apply those

strategies by scrutinizing good language student‟s behaviors (O‟Malley & Chamot

1990 in Razmojo & Gazemi 2011: 116). The purpose of doing the research on

language learning strategies is finding the language learning strategies employed

by the Indonesian EFL students.

Ellis (1994) points out those student strategies are one of the three

interrelating variables used to construct a framework for investigating individual

differences. The variables can be seen in Figure 1.1. The first set consists of


2

individual student differences that are three main types: beliefs about language

learning, affective states, and general factors. The second consists of student

strategies and the third concerns language learning outcomes, which can be

considered in terms of overall L2 proficiency, achievement with regard to L2

performance on particular task and rate of acquisition.

(1) Individual student differences

- Beliefs about language learning

- Affective states

- General factors

Learning processes and mechanisms

2) Student strategies (3) Language learning

outcomes - on proficiency

- on achievement

- on rate of acquisition

Figure 1.1 Framework for investigating individual student differences (Ellis,

1994: 529)

The three sets of variables are interrelated to one another. With regard to

the interrelationships between student strategies and individual student differences

as well as between student strategies and language learning outcomes, the

strategies that students employ can be influenced by individual student difference

variables, and can also have effects on them. For instance, students‟ affective state

which is one of the individual student difference factors influences the students‟

strategy use in the sense that when they are anxious about practicing speaking in

the L2, for example they could choose and employ one of the affective strategies


3

that works best for their situation (Oxford, 1990). They could employ the strategy

„using laughter‟, „using music‟, or „using progressive relaxation, deep breathing,

or meditation‟ (Oxford, 1990) or a combination of these strategies, to manage

their affective state. The students‟ strategy choice, which indicates their strategy

use patterns, can be influenced by their individual student differences. At the same

time, the use of these strategies could have an effect on the students‟ affective

state, i.e. their affective state is managed, and their anxiety lowers.

Investigations on learning strategies were more popular when Oxford

(1990) provided a detailed classification of language learning strategies that

converted into readily-used questionnaire called Strategy Inventory for Language

Learning (SILL). Many researchers using Oxford‟s SILL around the world and

these studies can be classified into three categories. The first are studies

attempting to explore the use of strategies descriptively such as Merrifiled (1996)

in French, Oxford & Ehrman (1990) in the United States, Lunt (2000) in

Australia, and Wharton (2000) in Singapore. Most of the studies show that the

students are moderate users of the strategies. The second are studies attempting

the learning strategies as a predictor of learning success as measured either by

language proficiency or achievement test such as Dreyer & Oxford (1994) in

South Africa & Park (1997) in South Korea. The results of these studies showed

that the learning strategies correlate significantly with the learning success. The

third are studies attempting to find factors that may affect the use of learning

strategies such as Oxford & Ehrman (1995) in the United States; Mistar, Junaedi,

Zuhairi Alfan & Parlindungan, Firman (2014). These studies proved that


4

motivation, proficiency level, course status, gender, career choice, cognitive

styles, personality, and length of the study affected the use of learning strategies.

On other hand, the studies at identifying and classifying learning strategies

of second/foreign students in Indonesia are popular nowadays. In the case of

strategies of EFL students, four studies carried in Indonesia are mention. One is

by Alfian (2011) who studies the language learning strategies of high school

students in Jambi, Indonesia. The results showed that the successful students used

more strategies than less successful students and there were no significant

differences between male and female in using language learning strategies. In the

research, also found that the students were reported to use metacognitive and

social strategies more frequently. Two is by Mistar, Junaedi, Zuhairi Alfan &

Parlindungan, Firman (2014) who investigated the strategies of learning English

Writing Skill by Indonesian Senior High School students. The result showed that

the successful students were found to use all of the strategies more frequently than

less successful students did.

Three is by Sri Wahyuni (2013) who investigated L2 speaking strategies

employed by Indonesian EFL tertiary students across proficiency and gender. The

results showed that the students preferred metacognitive strategy as their best

strategies in learning speaking. In her study also found that the speaking

proficiency and gender affected to the use of speaking strategies. Four is by

Anam, Syafi‟ul & Elke, Stracke (2016) who investigated language learning

strategies of Indonesian primary school students in relation to self-efficacy

beliefs. The results revealed that the students who possessed a higher sense of


5

English efficacy and self-regulated learning efficacy also reported using learning

strategies more often than those who did not possess this higher sense.

Based on the studies reviewed above, it is clear that the studies on general

learning strategies of second or foreign language have been carried out in

mountainous number. However, the numbers of studies in exploring speaking

language in university level are still limited. Most studies are carried out among

senior or junior high school students. In addition, the researchers do not explore

the reason of students‟ speaking strategies.

The speaking competence itself as one of major in the language learning is

expected to be mastered by the EFL students. Cameron (2001) stated that

speaking is the active use of language to express meanings so that other people

can make sense of them. It means that EFL students need to choose the

appropriate words in expressing the meanings so that the listeners can

understand their speaking clearly. On the other hand, Scott (2005) mentioned

that speaking or oral communication is an activity where two or more people

rolling as hearers and speakers have to react to what they hear and make their

contribution at high speed. Similar to the statement, Hughes (2006) states that

speaking is the first mode in which children acquire language. It forms most

people„s daily engagement with linguistic activity, and it is the prime motor of

language change. Therefore the speaking skill must be mastered by the EFL

students since they take English as their major. However, the facts that not all of

the EFL students have a good speaking skill.


6

Based on the reviews above, this research is held in order to find the most

speaking learning strategies employed by Indonesian EFL students in university

level. It is expected that the strategies employed by the successful Indonesian EFL

students may be learnt by those who are less successful. The suggestion is that the

"good language learner" might be doing something special or different that we

could all learn. There was also the suggestion that the effective learning strategies

are not the preserve of highly capable individuals, but could be learned by others

who had not discovered them on their own (O‟Malley & Chamot 1990: 2). The

reasons behind the students‟ choices strategy are also presented in this study

which is expected to give the information to the less successful students how to

improve their speaking competence.

B. PROBLEM FORMULATION

This study was conducted to answer four research questions:

1. What are the speaking learning strategies employed by successful Indonesian

EFL students?

2. What are the speaking learning strategies employed by less successful

Indonesian EFL students?

3. What are the students‟ reasons in choosing their speaking learning strategies?

C. RESEARCH GOALS

There were three main goals of this study. First, the researcher would like

to describe the speaking learning strategies employed by the successful

Indonesian EFL students. It was important to get the information what the


7

speaking learning strategies can be learned by the less successful students.

Secondly, the researcher would like to find the information about the learning

strategies employed by less successful students. It was important to have the

information related to the differences learning strategies employed between the

successful students and the less successful students.

Thirdly, the researcher would like to have information the students‟

reasons in choosing some specific speaking learning strategies. Since learning

language is behavior, so it must be interesting to understand the reasons why

students preferred some strategy than others. Theoretically, this study was useful

for finding the speaking learning strategies employed by the Indonesian EFL

students either the successful or the less successful one. It was expected that this

study can help the teachers by presenting some information regarding to the

learning strategies especially for speaking skill. Practically, this study was

conducted to provide the information regarding to the students‟ speaking learning

strategies employed by the successful and the less successful Indonesian EFL

students. In addition, this study was conducted to provide the information

regarding to the differences speaking learning strategies employed by the

successful and the less successful students, and the reasons behind the students‟

choices.

D. RESEARCH BENEFITS

This study is expected to give some benefits. Theoretically, this study will

enrich the important finding of study regarding to learning strategies especially


8

speaking skills. In addition, this study is also contributed to the teaching learning

activities. By knowing the learning strategies employed by the successful

students, the lectures are expected to help less successful students in improving

their speaking skills through guiding students to employe the speaking learning

strategies.

Practically, the study is useful to improve of teaching-learning process of

speaking. It is expected that by the result of the research could help the teachers in

improving the students speaking skills. In other words, this study is expected to

provide information for the EFL students and the teachers about the most

speaking learning strategies employed and the reasons related. Besides that, this

study is expected to give contribution in providing information and knowledge to

develop the speaking learning strategies.


9

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter consists of the theoretical review and theoretical framework.

The theoretical review presents some important concepts that are related to the

research. The theories are discussed in order to clarify major concepts and related

concepts to arrive all he logical answers to research questions. The theoretical

framework consists of summary from theories that will be used to solve the

research problems.

A. THEORETICAL REVIEW

Theoretical reviews consist of some related theories which become the

theoretical background of this study. There are six theories related to this study.

They are theory of speaking, theory of language learning strategies, theory of

model of learning strategies, ways students use language learning strategies,

reasons why students use language learning strategies in specific ways and theory

of English language learning in university level. Each part reviews the theories of

the issues mentioned previously and recently. They are related to the variables

involved in this study.

1. Theory of Speaking

This section covers the discussion of the nature of speaking, type of

speaking, the difficulties in speaking, and the assessment of speaking.


10

a. The Nature of Speaking

Many experts define speaking in different ways. Louma (2004) identifies

that speaking is a meaningful interaction between people. On the other hand,

Cameron (2001) states that speaking is the active use of language to express

meanings so that other people can make sense of them. He implies that in ELT

process concerning on speaking, the learners need to choose the appropriate

words in expressing the meanings so that the listeners can understand their

speaking clearly. According to Scott (2005), speaking or oral communication is

an activity where two or more people rolling as hearers and speakers have to react

to what they hear and make their contribution at high speed. Each participant has

a purpose or an intention that she/he wants to achieve in the interaction. Added to

this, speech is produced utterance-by-utterance, in response to the word-by-word

and utterance-by-utterance productions of person they are talking to interlocutor.

Similar to the statement, Hughes (2006) states that speaking is the

first mode in which children acquire language. It forms most people„s daily

engagement with linguistic activity, and it is the prime motor of language change.

From those various perspectives about the definition of speaking, a conclusion

could be drawn. Speaking is the oral communication activity between two people

acting as hearer and speakers to express what they meant in order to bridge the

gap of information they have.

b. The Type of Speaking

There are many groupings in relation to the types of speaking. Brown &

Yule (1983) provide a framework in distinguishing the types of speaking based on


11

their functions. They are talk as interaction, talk as transaction, and talk as

performance. Talk as interaction refers to conversation and describe interaction

that serves primarily social functions. The examples are exchange greetings,

small talk, and recount recent experiences.

Talk as transaction refers to situations where the focus is on what is said

or done. The central aim is the message and making oneself understand correctly

or in other word speaking to get things done. The examples are classroom group

discussions and problem-solving activities, a class activity during which students

design a poster, and asking someone for directions on the street. The latest, talk as

performance refers to public talks. The examples of the activities are classroom

presentation, public announcements, and speeches.

Richards (2015) mentions the genre of speaking refers to knowledge of

different types of spoken interaction, including the discourse conventions of each

kind of interaction. The genres include small talk, conversation, transaction,

discussion, and presentation. In terms of classroom speaking, Brown (2001)

groups the types of classroom speaking performances into five namely imitative,

intensive, responsive, interactive, and extensive (monologue). The difficulty

levels are rising consecutively. In imitative speaking, the students use the ability

to simply parrot back (imitate) a word or phrase or possibly a sentence. In this

activity, the pronunciation is emphasized and ignoring the interactive purpose.

The only role of listening here is in the short-term storage of a prompt, just long

enough to allow the speaker to retain the short stretch of language that must be

imitated.


12

In intensive speaking, the production of short stretches of oral language

is designed to demonstrate competence in a narrow band of grammatical, phrasal,

lexical, or phonological relationships (such as prosodic elements-intonation,

stress, rhythm, juncture). In responsive speaking, the emphasis is on an

interaction and test comprehension but at the limited level of very short

conversations, standard greetings and small talk, simple requests and

comments, and the like. The stimulus is always a spoken prompt, with perhaps

only one or two follow-up questions or retorts. In interactive speaking (dialogue),

multiple exchanges and/or multiple participants are sometimes included. The

interaction can take the two forms of transactional language (exchanging specific

information) or interpersonal language (maintaining social relationships). In

extensive (monologue) speaking, the speaking performances can be in the form of

speeches, oral presentations, and story-telling, during which the opportunity for

oral interaction from listeners is either highly limited (perhaps to nonverbal

responses) or ruled out altogether.

c. The Difficulties in Speaking

Despite the speaking type chosen, the students have common difficulties

in speaking with English since it is not their native language, the students should

adapt themselves to the rules brought along with the language organizationally

and pragmatically. Brown (2007) mentions several things which somehow arouse

difficulties in speaking. They are clustering, redundancy, reduced forms,

performance variables, colloquial language, rate of delivery, stress, rhythm,


13

and intonation, and interaction. In accordance to these, Harmer (2007) refers

to the same things with different technical terms.

According to Harmer (2007) the important elements needed to master by

the speakers are categorized into language features and mental/social processing.

In language features of spoken production, things such as connected speech,

expressive devices (stress and intonation), lexis and grammar, and negotiation

language altogether should be taken into account. In the other side, the

mental/social processing consisted of language processing, interacting with other,

and (on-the-spot) information processing.

From those perspectives, it could be drawn that some challenges should be

faced by the speakers during their performances. Factors such as vocabulary and

expression, fluency, grammar, pronunciation and intonation, and interactive skills

should be coped with by the students. Dealing with speaking difficulties, the

speaking as the macro skill of English itself has its own micro skills. It may give

the learners more load. Brown (2001:272) lists the micro skills of speaking as

follows:

1) Produce differences among English phonemes and allophonic variants;

2) Produce chunks of language of different lengths;

3) Produce English stress patterns, words in stressed and unstressed

positions, rhythmic structure, and intonation contour;

4) Produce reduced forms of words and phrases;

5) Use an adequate number of lexical unit (words) to accomplish pragmatic

purposes;


14

6) Produce different speech at different rates of delivery;

7) Monitor one„s own oral production and use various strategic device-uses,

fillers, self-corrections, backtracking to enhance the clarity of the

message;

8) Use grammatical word classes (noun, verbs, etc.), system (e.g. tenses,

agreement, and pluralization), word order, pattern, rules and elliptical

forms;

9) Produce speech in natural constituents: in appropriate phrases, pause

group, breathe groups, and sentence constituents;

10) express a particular meaning in different grammatical forms;

11) Use cohesive device in spoken discourse;

12) Appropriately accomplish communicative functions according

to situations, participants, and goals;

13) Use appropriately style, registers, implicative, redundancies, pragmatic

conventions, conversation rules, floor-keeping and yielding, interrupting,

and other sociolinguistic features in face to face conversation;

14) Convey links and connection between events and communicates such

relation as focal and peripheral ideas, events and filings, new information

and given information, generalization and exemplification;

15) Convey facial features, kinesics, body language, and other nonverbal

clues along with verbal language;

16) Develop and use battery of speaking strategies, such us emphasizing

key word, rephrasing, providing context for interpreting the meaning of


15

the words, appealing for help, and accurately assessing how well your

interlocutor is to understand you.

d. The Assessment of Speaking

To evaluate the teaching speaking as well as to monitor students„ progress

in speaking, the assessment of speaking becomes a crucial thing. An effective

assessment should follow several rules (Brown: 2004). They are (1) the specific

criteria; (2) the appropriate task; (3) the elicitation of optimal output; and (4) the

practical and reliable scoring procedures.

In terms of specific criteria, different experts suggest different criteria to

be assessed. O„Malley & Pierce (1966) propose five criteria in speaking which

are vocabulary and expression, grammar, fluency, pronunciation and intonation,

and interactive skill. Brown (2001) proposes four criteria to be assessed in

speaking pronunciation, fluency, accuracy, and vocabulary. Thornburry, Scott

(2005) recommends the Cambridge Certificate in English Language Speaking

Skills (CELS) criteria to be assessed. They are grammar and vocabulary,

discourse management, pronunciation, and interactive communication which

levels correspond to Common European Framework Reference (CEFR). On

the other hand, Richards (2015) proposes Wood„s (2009) criteria in assessing

speaking which are categorized into two: clarity of expression and clarity of

meaning. Clarity of expression consists of pronunciation, comprehensibility,

speed, hesitations, intonation and rhythm, facial expression, and eye contact.

Meanwhile, clarity of meaning consists of vocabulary, phrases, grammar, and

overall evaluation. Therefore, by referring to those suggestions the teacher could


16

select what criteria she wants to assess.

In terms of appropriate task, as what has been mentioned by Richards

(2015), the teacher should select activities based on the aims of the assessment.

After determining the goals, the teacher could refer to the type of speaking like

what have been discussed in the previous sub-chapters. The type of speaking

chosen will influence the elicitation of optimal output. When the task is

appropriate, it could elicit students speaking skill from their performance and

based on the specified criteria. In terms of the practical and reliable scoring

procedures, the teacher has to make sure that the procedure of the assessment is

easy to conduct. The specified criteria should be selected to enable the

assessment; therefore, the availability of scoring rubric for speaking is

necessarily needed.

Brown (2004) mentions that there are at least two types of common

scoring rubrics for speaking: (1) holistic and (2) analytical. A holistic rubric

ranges, for example, from 1 to 4. Each score reflects the capacity of the speaker

with 4 being normally very good and 1 poor performance. An analytical rubric,

on the other hand, scores performance in different subcategories such as

grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, pronunciation and task

completion. There are two common practices regarding the latter: (1) the total

score is summed in average to reflect an overall score or (2) each category is

given a different weight sometimes without the necessity to sum up the total

score.


17

O„Malley (1996:65) suggests several steps in developing rubric: (1) Set

criteria of task success (2) Set dimensions of language to be assessed (grammar,

vocabulary, fluency, pronunciation, etc.) (3) Give appropriate weight to each

dimension (if omission is possible, do) (4) Focus of what test taker can do,

instead of what they cannot. O„Malley„s criteria in speaking assessment is

considered the most feasible criteria to be used.

2. Theory of Language Learning Strategies

This section covers the discussion of the definition and model of language

learning strategies.

a. Definition of Language Learning Strategies

The term „strategy‟ comes from the ancient Greek word strategia meaning

„generalship‟ or „the art of war‟. The expression implies characteristics of

planning, competition, conscious manipulation, and movement towards a goal. In

non-military contexts, the strategy concept has been interpreted as a plan, step, or

conscious action towards the achievement of a goal. In education, this concept has

taken on a new meaning and it has been transformed into learning strategies

(Oxford, 1990).

Oxford (1990) argues that the definition learning strategies commonly

used in the 1980s was indeed helpful, but it did not fully convey the richness of

language learning strategies. Therefore, she expanded this definition into “specific

actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more

self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (Oxford,

1990: 8). Similarly, at about the same time, O‟Malley & Chamot (1990: 1)


18

proposed a definition: “the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to

help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information.” Slightly different from

these two definitions is one proposed by Cohen (1990). He defined learning

strategies as “learning processes which are consciously selected by the learner”

(Cohen, 1990: 5). The component of „consciousness‟ was introduced in the

definition. Throughout the decade of the 1990s, more definitions appeared. In the

mid-1990s, Green & Oxford (1995: 262) conceived of language learning

strategies as “specific actions or techniques that students use, often intentionally,

to improve their progress in developing L2 skills.” In this definition, a new

component, „intentionality‟, was added to the definition.

Language learning and language use strategies as “processes which are

consciously selected by learners and which may result in actions taken to enhance

the learning or use of a second or foreign language, through the storage, retention,

recall, and application of information about that language” (Cohen, 1998: 4).

Brown (2000: 122) defined language learning strategies as “the moment-by-

moment techniques that we employ to solve „problems‟ posed by second language

input and output.” This definition is basically similar to those proposed by other

theorists earlier, that is by involving „actions‟ or „techniques‟ and „movement

towards the achievement of an objective‟.

A recent definition claims that language learning strategies are “the

learner‟s goal-directed actions for improving language proficiency or

achievement, completing a task, or making learning more efficient, more

effective, and easier” (Oxford, 2011: 167). In line with definitions from other


19

researchers, this one includes components of „actions‟ and „movement towards the

achievement of an objective‟. However, the component of „consciousness‟, as

included by some other researchers is missing here. The details of the „objective‟,

i.e. L2 achievement, task completion, or L2 learning regulation, resemble to those

in the definition that Oxford herself proposed earlier in 1990 (Oxford, 1990: 8).

Reading closely the definitions of language learning strategies quoted in

this section, one may see a general consistent feature of language learning

strategies, i.e. the involvement of „actions‟ and „purpose of doing the actions‟

within the definition. All the definitions quoted here embody these two semantic

components. What distinguishes the definitions from one another is the degree of

comprehensiveness of the definition reflecting the breadth and depth of language

learning strategies. As regards „actions‟, they constitute whether the actions are

taken mentally or physically, and consciously or subconsciously. „The purpose of

doing the actions‟ relates variously to whether it is to enhance the language

learning only or the language use as well, to foster autonomous learning behavior,

and to solve problems faced in the language learning.

On the basis of the above account of constituents of language learning

strategies, the researcher adopts the definition proposed by Griffiths (2008: 87)

for its concise representation of those constituents. According to her, language

learning strategies are “activities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose

of regulating their own language learning.” Firstly, this definition reflects the

meaning of the general term „strategy‟, namely a conscious action towards the

achievement of a goal. Secondly, it reflects the general semantic components of


20

„language learning strategies‟, namely „actions‟ and „purpose of doing the

actions‟, and it also involves the details of the implied meaning of the two

components, namely in the choice of the term „activities‟, which implies physical

or mental behavior. Further, „consciously chosen‟ suggests „intentionality‟ and

desire to improve one‟s language learning. Thirdly, the definition has the merit of

breadth and precision. Griffiths claims it is broad enough to allow the freedom to

research areas within it, but precise enough to exclude learner characteristics and

activities that are not language learning strategies (Griffiths, 2008: 87). For all

these reasons the definition is the most appropriate to guide this research.

b. Model of Language Learning Strategies

Another issue that has become the focus of much research on language

learning strategies is the classification of the strategies. Oxford (1990) further

claims that 46 out of 62 strategies from her whole strategy taxonomy are useful

for the learning of speaking. Oxford (1990), whose strategy classification was

chosen for the study, places learning strategies in two major classes: direct and

indirect. Direct strategies are those that directly involve the target language. These

strategies require mental processing of the language. Indirect strategies are those

that support and manage language learning without directly involving the target

language. Detalied model of language learning strategies presented by Oxford can

seen in Figure 2.1.


21

Figure 2.1 Model of Learning Strategies by Oxford (1990)

The first major class, direct strategies, is divided into three sub-classes

called memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies. Firstly, memory strategies

are strategies that help language learners store and retrieve new information. This

sub-class constitutes creating mental linkages (grouping, associating/elaborating,

and placing new words into a context), applying images and sounds (using

imagery, semantic mapping, using keywords, and representing sounds in

memory), reviewing well (structured reviewing), and employing action (using

physical response or sensation, and using mechanical techniques).

Second, cognitive strategies are those that enable language learners to

understand and produce new language by many different means. This sub-class

constitutes practicing (repeating, formally practicing with sounds and writing

system, recognizing and using formulas and patterns, recombining, and practicing

naturalistically), receiving and sending messages (getting the idea quickly, using

resources for receiving and sending messages), analyzing and reasoning


22

(reasoning deductively, analyzing expressions, analyzing contrastively across

languages, translating, and transferring), and creating structure for input and

output (taking notes, summarizing, and highlighting).

Third, compensation strategies are those that allow language learners to

use the language despite their large gaps in knowledge. This sub-class constitutes

guessing intelligently (using linguistic clues, using other clues), and overcoming

limitations in speaking and writing (switching to the mother tongue, getting help,

using mime or gesture, avoiding communication partially or totally, selecting the

topic, adjusting or approximating the message, coining words, and using a

circumlocution or synonym).

The second major class, indirect strategies, is also divided into three sub-

classes, called metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. Firstly,

metacognitive strategies are those that allow language learners to control their

own cognition. As displayed in this sub-class comprises centering one‟s learning

(overviewing and linking with already known material, paying attention, and

delaying speech production to focus on listening), arranging and planning one‟s

learning (finding out about language learning, organizing, setting goals and

objectives, identifying the purpose of a language task, planning for a language

task, and seeking practice opportunities), and evaluating one‟s learning (self-

monitoring, self-evaluating).

Secondly, affective strategies are the ones that help language learners

regulate emotions, motivations, and attitudes. This sub-class includes lowering

one‟s anxiety (using progressive relaxation, deep breathing, or meditation; using


23

music; and using laughter), encouraging oneself (making positive statements,

taking risk wisely, and rewarding oneself), and taking one‟s emotional

temperature (listening to one‟s body, using a checklist, writing a language

learning diary, and discussing one‟s feelings with someone else).

Thirdly, social strategies are those that help language learners learn

through interactions with others. This sub-class constitutes asking questions

(asking for clarification or verification, and asking for correction), cooperating

with others (cooperating with peers, cooperating with proficient users of the new

language), and empathizing with others (developing cultural understanding,

becoming aware of others‟ thoughts and feelings).

Oxford (1990) further claims that 46 out of 62 strategies from her whole

strategy taxonomy are useful for the learning of speaking. The strategies are

summarized in Table 2.1 below.


24

Table 2.1 Language learning strategies for speaking skills by Oxford (1990)

Item Strategy Group Class

1 Placing new words into a context

Memory

Direct

2 Representing sounds in memory

3 Structured reviewing

4 Repeating

Cognitive

5 Formally practicing with sounds and writing

systems 6 Recognizing and using formulas and patterns

7 Recombining

8 Practicing naturalistically

9 Using resources for receiving and sending messages

10 Reasoning deductively

11 Translating

12 Transferring

13 Switching to the mother tongue

Compensation

14 Getting help

15 Using mime or gesture

16 Avoiding communication partially or totally

17 Selecting the topic

18 Adjusting or approximating the message

19 Coining words

20 Using a circumlocution or synonym

21 Overviewing and linking with already known

material

Metacognitive

Indirect

22 Paying attention

23 Delaying speech production to focus on listening

24 Finding out about language learning

25 Organizing

26 Setting goals and objectives

27 Identifying the purpose of a language task

28 Planning for a language task

29 Seeking practice opportunities

30 Self-monitoring

31 Self-evaluating

32 Using progressive relaxation or deep breathing

Affective

33 Using music

34 Using laughter

35 Making positive statements

36 Taking risks wisely

37 Rewarding yourself

38 Listening to your body

39 Using a checklist

40 Writing a language learning diary

41 Discussing your feelings with someone else

42 Asking for correction

Social

43 Cooperating with peers

44 Cooperating with proficient users of the new

language 45 Developing cultural understanding

46 Becoming aware of others‟ thoughts and feelings


25

Oxford‟s (1990) general strategy taxonomy and list of strategies useful for

the learning of speaking form the theoretical foundation in the study. Thus, in

addressing the first research question, what L2 speaking strategies students‟ use,

and its first sub-question, what strategy and strategy group the students favor the

most and least, this theory will be invoked, i.e. the 46 language learning strategies

spreading over six groups that are useful for speaking skills.

3. Language Learning Strategies Employed by EFL Students

This section covers the discussion of the ways and reasons students

employed language learning strategies.

a. Ways Students Employed Language Learning Strategies

There has apparently been no research study that focuses its investigation

specifically on the ways students use strategies. It is, however, possible to extract

information about it through inferences and interpretations from less prominent

findings of a few studies, or from claims made by researchers when elaborating

issues in their studies that might relate to the subject.

Such information functions as an initial understanding of how students use

strategies. Research studies demonstrate that students use strategies in the

dimension of frequency, i.e. they use the strategies weakly or frequently. Such

studies include Green & Oxford (1995), Lee & Oxford (2008), Riazi (2007) and

Zhang & Goh (2006). Green & Oxford (1995: 261) state that “… strategies

reported as used more often by the more successful students emphasized active,

naturalistic practice and were used in combination with a variety of what we term

bedrock strategies, which were used frequently or moderately frequently …”


26

Likewise, Lee & Oxford (2008: 7) demonstrate that students who “had certain

characteristics – valuing English as important (the importance of English),

evaluating their own proficiency as high (English-learning self-image), and being

already aware of many language learning strategies – employed learning strategies

more frequently than those who did not.” Riazi (2007: 437) mentions “to find out

which strategies were used most frequently … the mean use for each strategy was

calculated.” Zhang & Goh (2006: 199) also state that “of the 40 strategies, 32

were perceived as useful by half the students, whereas only 13 were reported as

used frequently.”

A couple of studies indicate that students use strategies in the dimension of

consciousness and confidence. Lee & Oxford (2008: 8) argue that “... learning

strategy is still quite a vague concept to Korean EFL learners, although learning

strategies could definitely help them learn English more efficiently if they knew

and employed such strategies consciously.” Riazi (2007: 438) argues that “…

freshmen students may approach language learning more consciously than more

experienced students of higher years.” Zhang & Goh (2006: 199) found that 32 of

40 strategies were perceived as useful by half of the participating students, but

only 13 were used frequently. “The discrepancy indicates that, while the students

were generally aware of the usefulness of the strategies, they were not yet

conscious and confident strategy users.” The dimension of consciousness reported

in Lee & Oxford (2008) has „awareness‟ as its key element (Lee & Oxford, 2008,

p. 10), whereas that used in Zhang & Goh (2006), along with the dimension of

confidence, seems to be based on quantity and frequency.


27

As they point out, participating students would have been considered

conscious and confident strategy users if they had used all the 32 strategies they

perceived as useful frequently. Thus it may be said that students use strategies

consciously and confidently when they frequently and undoubtedly use all the

strategies they believe to be useful.

Some other studies provide hints that students use strategies in the

dimensions of efficiency (Lee & Oxford, 2008; Riazi, 2007) and effectiveness

(Cohen, 1998). Lee & Oxford (2008: 9), paraphrasing findings of other strategy

studies, conclude that “… more proficient learners employ a wider range of

strategies more efficiently than less proficient learners” do. Riazi (2007: 439)

argues that “exposing students to these strategies systematically may enable them

to use the strategies more efficiently in the process of their language learning.”

Cohen (1998: 8) points out that “... with some exceptions, strategies themselves

are not inherently good or bad, but have the potential to be used effectively.”

Vann and Abraham (1990: 190-191) argue that “... less successful learners still

appear to be active strategy users, but they often failed to apply strategies

appropriately to the task at hand.” They add that one student‟s strength “lay in

pursuing meaning, but she applied no systematic set of strategies for attending to

form” (Vann & Abraham, 1990: 191). Hsiao & Oxford (2002: 369), citing

Abraham & Vann (1987) and Vann & Abraham (1990), state that “less successful

L2 learners grab for various strategies in a seemingly desperate, random way, and

do not pay sufficient attention to the relevance of a strategy to the task at hand.”

Oxford (2011: 171), states “Although less effective learners often use as many


28

strategies as good language learners, the former apply strategies randomly or

desperately.”

Unlike the dimensions of frequency, consciousness, and confidence whose

meaning is indirectly addressed in the given studies, or can easily be inferred from

the contexts, the dimensions of efficiency, effectiveness, and appropriateness can

only be accessed through their lexical meanings. The Oxford Advanced Learner‟s

Dictionary (2005) defines „efficiency‟ as the quality of doing something well with

no waste of time or money; „effectiveness‟, the quality of producing the intended

results; and „appropriateness‟, the quality of being suitable or acceptable for the

circumstances. The possible reason why these dimensions are not addressed in the

studies is that the studies are not concerned specifically with the ways strategies

are used, and hence there is no urgency for them to provide such specific

explanation.

As regards the dimensions of systematicity (Vann & Abraham, 1990),

desperation and randomness (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002), their contextual meanings

are available directly. However, to better understand them, the researcher

paraphrases the quotations from the studies using adverbs, as Oxford (2011) does.

For instance, „less successful L2 learners employed strategies unsystematically,

desperately, and randomly‟. Using such paraphrase, one sees that the three

dimensions share a common feature, which apparently is the key element of the

three dimensions: lack of pattern of use. As Hsiao & Oxford (2002) point out, less

successful L2 learners do not pay sufficient attention to the relevance of strategies

to the task at hand. The learners might have used any strategies from their


29

repertoire without knowing any conditions of their use and combination with

other strategies.

Applying initial understanding of the ways students use strategies

provided by studies reviewed in this sub-subsection, one may view these studies

as the starting point for exploring the answer to the second research question,

although they are studies on language learning strategies in general. Reviewing

these studies may seem a poor basis for establishing a conceptual background for

a study on L2 speaking strategies. But there are two reasons for doing so. First,

there are relatively few studies dealing with L2 speaking strategies; second, many

language learning strategies, especially those listed in Oxford‟s (1990) strategy

taxonomy, are not only useful for one specific language skill but also for other

skills. Some strategies are indeed useful only for certain language skills and

cannot be easily applied to the other language skills, but the number of these

strategies is very low.

Based on this rationale, to investigate the ways students use L2 speaking

strategies, the investigation is built on the understanding that students use

language learning strategies in the dimensions of frequency, consciousness,

confidence, efficiency, effectiveness, appropriateness, systematicity, desperation,

and randomness. In this study, the ways students use strategies will be classified

according to these dimensions. If they fall outside the dimensions, they may still

be interesting findings and a contribution to the research on language learning

strategies.


30

b. Reasons Students Employed Language Learning Strategies

Since there is no research study that specifically investigates the ways

students use strategies, there is none that investigates the reasons why they use

strategies in specific ways, either. Several studies have provided initial

understanding of the subject. They include Lee & Oxford (2008), Zhang & Goh

(2006) and Ellis (1994).

Lee & Oxford (2008: 7), demonstrate that students with certain

characteristics, i.e. valuing English as important, evaluating their own proficiency

as high, and being already aware of many language learning strategies, employed

learning strategies more frequently. Oxford (2011: 180), commenting on Lee &

Oxford (2008), says that “... more frequent use of learning strategies was related

to three learner factors: strategy awareness, perceptions of the importance of

English, and self-perception of high English proficiency.” Both Lee & Oxford

(2008) and Oxford (2011) do not explicitly claim the three learner factors as the

„reasons‟ why students used strategies more frequently. However, to provide a

basic grasp of the reason why students use strategies in specific ways, the

researcher summarize that the relationship between the frequent use of strategies

and the three learner factors is causal, at least, as one of the possibilities.

Therefore, the students employed strategies frequently because of their

perceptions on the importance of English, English-learning self- image, and

awareness of many strategies.

Zhang & Goh (2006) argue that despite the awareness of the usefulness of

strategies, students were not yet conscious and confident strategy users. This


31

statement suggests that the students did not use strategies consciously and

confidently, although they were aware of the usefulness of them. This implies that

students‟ awareness of the usefulness of the strategies was one of the „reasons‟ or

„necessary quisites‟ for them to use strategies consciously and confidently. In

addition, Ellis (1994) points out those student strategies are one of the three

interrelating variables used to construct a framework for investigating individual

differences which consists of three variables. The first set consists of individual

student differences that are three main types: beliefs about language learning,

affective states, and general factors. The second consists of student strategies and

the third concerns language learning outcomes, which can be considered in terms

of overall L2 proficiency, achievement with regard to L2 performance on

particular task and rate of acquisition.

The three sets of variables are interrelated to one another. With regard to

the interrelationships between student strategies and individual student differences

as well as between student strategies and language learning outcomes, the

strategies that students employ can be influenced by individual student difference

variables, and can also have effects on them. With this initial understanding of the

reasons why students use strategies in specific ways provided by the studies

reviewed no far.

4. Indonesian EFL Students

Indonesia as the group of expanding circle widely used English language

as a foreign language or lingua franca since English plays no historical or

governmental role. It means that English put as the foreign language because the


32

first language is local language, while the second language is Indonesian

language. Although the English language has role as foreign language, but the

English language has important role in Indonesian education. It makes the English

language become one of the subject that the students should learn from junior

high school even some primary schools put English as one of the subject. In this

research, the Indonesian EFL students are the students who take English as their

major in the university.

There are many important components related to English language

learning and teaching in university level. There are several important components

in the English language learning and teaching process, students, lecturers and the

curriculum. Indonesia as EFL context country where English is not the dominant

language makes the English language is not the dominant language in the

classroom. The students employed their first or second language in the classroom

than the English. Outside of the classroom students have very few opportunities to

use English so some learning English may not have any obvious practical benefit.

The Students have limited exposure to English-speaking culture directly, most

often through a distorted lens like movie or music. Their age from late teens to

early twenties on entering the university have studied English for at least six years

in junior and senior high schools, but some of them may have started learning

English earlier at elementary schools.

The English lecturers in university mostly are non-native English speakers.

Some native English speaking volunteers have occasionally taught speaking. The

non-native English speaking lecturer could either be permanent or temporary


33

employees of the university. Curriculum also have important role in Indonesian

EFL. The curriculum for EFL students consists of subjects that are classified

according to specific targeted competencies: personality development, discipline

and skills mastery, professional expertise, professional behavior, and social

interaction.

B. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

From the discussion stated in the theoretical review, the researcher

synthesizes a theoretical framework in this research. It is used for clarifying of all

concepts of speaking learning strategies employed by Indonesian EFL students.

This section would answer the problem formulation by using some theories based

on some experts. Therefore, this study will seek to discover four research

questions which are: What are the speaking learning strategies employed by

Indonesian EFL students? Which learning strategies are employed by successful

Indonesian EFL students? Which learning strategies are employed by less

successful Indonesian EFL students? and What motivates the students to employ

their speaking learning strategies?

To answer the research questions, the researcher adapts some theories

proposed by Oxford (1990), Oxford (2011) and Ellis (1994). The first, second and

third research questions related to the speaking learning employed by the

Indonesian EFL students, the learning strategies theory by Oxford is employed.

Oxford (1990) provides 46 useful for the learning of speaking. In addition Oxford

(1990) classifies the learning strategies in two major classes: direct and indirect.


34

The direct strategies are those that directly involve the target language. These

strategies require mental processing of the language. The direct strategies is

divided into three sub-classes called memory, cognitive, and compensation

strategies. On the other hand, the indirect strategies are those that support and

manage language learning without directly involving the target language. The

indirect strategies is divided into three sub-classes, called metacognitive,

affective, and social strategies. The categorization by Oxford will be used in

answering the research questions related to the speaking learning strategies

employed by Indonesian EFL students.

The reasons behind the Indonesia EFL students‟ choices of the learning

strategies also provided in this study related to the theories provided by Oxford

(2011), and Ellis (1994). Oxford (2011: 180) mentioned that more frequent use of

learning strategies was related to three learner factors: strategy awareness,

perceptions of the importance of English, and self-perception of high English

proficiency. While Ellis (1994) points out those student strategies are one of the

three interrelating variables. The first variables consist of individual student

differences that are three main types: beliefs about language learning, affective

states, and general factors. The second variables consists of student strategies and

the third concerns language learning outcomes, which can be considered in terms

of overall L2 proficiency, achievement with regard to L2 performance on

particular task and rate of acquisition. The three sets of variables are interrelated

to one another. With regard to the interrelationships between student strategies

and individual student differences as well as between student strategies and


35

language learning outcomes, the strategies that students employ can be influenced

by individual student difference variables, and can also have effects on them.

With this initial understanding of the fourth research question will be confirmed.


36

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides some methodology and procedure implied in this study. It

consists of five sections, namely (a) research design, (b) nature of data, (c)

respondents, (d) data gathering instruments, and (e) data analysis technique. The

research design reveals the purpose and method in this research. The nature of

data describes the detail information of the data being analyzed. The respondents

provide the information of the participants of the research. The data gathering

instruments deals with the data analysis techniques.

A. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHOD

This study was aimed to investigate the speaking learning strategies

employed by Indonesian EFL students. To achieve the goals, this research applied

mixed method which combined both quantitative and qualitative analysis to

answer the research problems. Cresswell (2003) defined the mixed method as a

method which focuses on collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and

qualitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the

use of quantitative and qualitative approaches, in combination, provides a better

understanding of research problems than either approach alone. Therefore the data

in this method is collected simultaneously or sequentially to answer the research

problems.

The procedures in this research were conducted based on the sequential

explanatory strategy. The purpose of the explanatory strategy itself is to use


37

qualitative results to assist in explaining and interpreting the findings of a

primarily quantitative study (Cresswell, 2003:215). Furthermore, Cresswell (2003:

535) explain that an explanatory sequential design consists of first collecting

quantitative data and then collecting qualitative data to help explaining or

elaborating on the quantitative results. In this research, it aims to comprehend an

overall view of speaking strategies employed by Indonesian EFL students and to

attain deeper understanding of their strategy use. It is also applied to find out the

relationship between speaking learning strategy use and students‟ achievement in

order to have greater insight into the differences the learning strategies employed

by the successful students and the less successful students.

The quantitative and qualitative methods were applied in order to answer

the research problems. The quantitative survey was conducted to find the speaking

learning strategies employed by the Indonesian EFL students generally and

individually. This study provided qualitative data by conducting semi-structured

interview. Semi-structured interview was conducted as a means to get individual

perception of the respondents toward speaking learning strategies. In conducting

mixed method, both methods contribute greatly to reach the ultimate answer of

the questions. There are some steps in conducting this method. Frankel & Wallen

(2009: 564) provide six steps to conduct mixed-method study.

1. Develop a clear rational for doing a mixed-method study.

2. Develop research questions for both the qualitative and quantitative methods.

3. Decide if a mixed-method study is feasible.

4. Determine the mixed-method design most appropriate to the research question.

5. Collect and analyze the data

6. Write up the results in a manner consistent with the design being used.


38

In the implementation of the method, it provided sequential explanatory

design that necessitates this study not only to carry out quantitative data but also

to take the advantage of qualitative data follow up and support quantitative

findings. The data collection n mixed method research involves gathering both

numeric information as well as text information so that the original database

represents both quantitative and qualitative information. The illustration can be

seen as follow.

Figure 3.1 Mixed Method Design Adapted from Cresswell (2003)

B. NATURE OF DATA

According to Neuman (2006: 8), data are the empirical evidence of

information that one gathers carefully according to rules or procedures. The data

can be in form of quantitative or qualitative data. This study applies both

quantitative and qualitative data. The natures of quantitative data are taken from

students‟ speaking achievement and speaking learning strategies which were all

expressed in numbers in this research because it was analyze using SPSS 17.0

software. The data of speaking learning strategies were taken from the

questionnaire distributed to the respondents, while the students‟ achievement are

were taken from their Grade Point Average (GPA) and speaking scores. The data

results of GPA and speaking scores will determine the successful and less

successful Indonesian EFL students.

Quantitative study

(higher priority)

Qualitative study

(lower priority)

Combine and intepret

Results


39

On other hand, the nature of qualitative data results were expressed in

words based on the interviews to find out the reasons of the Indonesian EFL

students speaking strategies. For supporting the qualitative analysis, the result of

interview was organized and categorized in qualitative data coding. According to

Frankfort (1997:335), coding is the process by which responses are classified into

meaningful categories. The code should be consistent across cases or units of

analysis when the same condition exists. Miles & Huberman in Neuman (2006:

460) also add that codes are tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the

descriptive or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential

information compiled during the research, Therefore, the coding process, the

researcher analyzed the data by organizing it into categories in the basis themes,

concepts, and similar features to generalize the theories.

C. SAMPLING

In conducting this research, the population and the sample should be

determined first. Population is the group to which the researcher would like the

results of the study to be generalizable; it includes all the individuals with certain

specified characteristics (Frankel & Wallen: 2009). Based on this definition, it can

be concluded that population is the large group or all of individuals which the

researcher hopes to apply the result. According to Gulo (2002:77), population can

be definite and indefinite population. The population in this research is the

Indonesian EFL students and it is uncountable. It is definite population since the

population is the students who take English as their major in the university level.


40

Instead of population, the important part of the study is selecting the

sample of individuals who will participate. Sample means a portion, or part, of the

population of interest (Lind, et.al, 2005: 7). The sample of this research is 183

Indonesian EFL students at Yogyakarta State University from semester one to

eight.

There are many kinds of sampling techniques. They are random sampling,

systematic sampling, stratified sampling and cluster sampling. In this research, the

researcher applied cluster sampling technique in selecting participant of this

study. As Bluman (2003) state that a cluster sampling is a sample obtained by

selecting a preexisting or natural group, called a cluster, and using the members in

the cluster for sample. Therefore, the clusters were EFL students at Yogyakarta

State University which consists of 183 students from semester one to eight. The

students were selected randomly as representative of each cluster.

To support the quantitative analysis, six (6) students were randomly

selected as participants of the interview. The students who participated in the

interviews represent the group of successful Indonesian EFL students and the

group of less successful Indonesian students. The interviews were conducted on

order to explore the students‟ reasons employing the speaking strategies.

D. DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENTS

In order to gather the data for this study, the researcher applied two

instruments. These instruments in line with the choice of the mixed method

approach for this study. The first instrument was the questionnaire; it was use for


41

collecting the data of students‟ learning strategies. Secondly, it is students‟ grade

sheet which is used for collecting the students‟ speaking proficiency. The last

was the semi-structured interviews, which used to collect the qualitative data in

form of students‟ perceptions in choosing the speaking learning strategies. This

section presents the data gathering instruments

1. Questionnaire

The data result for speaking learning strategies were taken from

questionnaire. The questionnaire employed for this study was adapted from the

SILL version 7.0 (Oxford, 1990). There are 50 statements in the SILL

questionnaire, 17 of 50 statement are representing learning strategies for language

skills other than speaking were not adopted. Therefore there are 33 statements

were adopted in the SILL questionnaire and six statements which are adopted by

the questionnaire of Sri Wahyuni (2013) since it is already applied in the research.

Those additional statements were added into the questionnaire to meet the need

for collecting more specific data on strategies for speaking skills The 39

statements consist of three statements of memory strategy group; eight statements

of cognitive strategy group and compensation strategy group; ten statements of

metacognitive strategy group; six statements of affective strategy group; and four

statements of social strategy group. The distribution of the statements along with

their source, the represented strategy and the strategies group were presented as

follow.


42

Table 3.1 the distribution of questionnaire

Statement Source Represented

Strategy

Strategies

group SILL Adopted

1: I use new English words in a

sentence so I can remember

them

√ Placing new words

into a context

Memory 2: I use rhymes to remember

new English words √

Representing

sounds in memory

3: I review English lessons

often √

Structured

reviewing

4: I say or write new English

words several times √

Repeating

Cognitive

5: I try to talk like native

English Speakers √

6: I practice the sounds of

English √

Formally practicing

with sound system

7: I use the English words I

know in different ways √ Recombining

8: I start conversations in

English √

Practicing

naturalistically

9: I watch English language TV

shows spoken in English or go

to movies spoken in English

√

Using resources for

receiving and

sending messages

10: I try to find patterns in

English √

Recognizing and

using formulas and

patterns Reasoning

deductively

11: I try not to translate word-

for- Word √

Translating

Transferring

12: When I cannot think of a

word during a conversation in

English, I use gestures

√

Using mime or

gesture

Compen-

sation

13: I make up new words if I

do not know the right ones in

English

√

Coining word

14: If I cannot think of an

English word, I use a word or

phrase that means the same

thing

√

Using a

circumlocution or

synonym


43



English, I use an Indonesian

expression

√ Switching to the

mother tongue



English, I ask for help from the

person I am addressing

√ Getting help

17: I avoid certain situations or

topics during a conversation in

English because they are too

difficult

√

Avoiding

communication

partially or totally

18: I select topics of

conversation in English √ Selecting the topic

19: If I cannot think of English

words to say a message, I make

the idea simpler

√

Adjusting or

approximating the

message

20: I try to find as many ways

as I can to use my English √

Overviewing and

linking with

already known

material

Meta-

cognitive

21: I pay attention when

someone is speaking English √

Paying attention

22: I repeat silently to myself

when someone is speaking

English

√

Delaying speech

production to focus

on listening

23: I try to find out how to be a

better learner of English √

Finding out about

language learning

24: I plan my schedule so I will

have enough time to study

English

√

Organizing

25: I look for people I can talk

to in English √

Seeking practice

opportunities

26: I look for opportunities to

read as much as possible in

English

√

27: I have clear goals for

improving my English skills √

Setting goals and

objectives

Identifying the

purpose of a

language task

Planning for a

language task


44

28: I notice my English

mistakes and use the

information to help me do

better

√

Self-monitoring

29: I think about my progress

in learning English √

Self-evaluating

30: I try to relax whenever I

feel afraid of using English √

Using progressive

relaxation, deep

breathing,

meditation

Affective

Using music

Using laughter

31: I encourage myself to speak

English even when I am afraid

of making a mistake

√

Making positive

statement

Taking risk wisely

32: I give myself a reward or

treat when I do well in English √

Rewarding yourself

33: I notice if I am tense or

nervous when I am studying or

using English

√

Listening to your

body

Using a checklist

34: I write down my feelings in

a language learning diary √

Writing a language

learning diary

35: I talk to someone else about

how I feel when I am learning

English

√

Discussing your

feelings with

someone else

36: I ask English speakers to

correct me when I talk √

Asking for

correction

Social

37: I practice English with

other students √

Cooperating with

peers

38: I ask for help from English

speakers √

Cooperating with

proficient users of

the new language

39: I try to learn about the

culture of English speakers √

Developing

cultural

understanding

Becoming aware of

others‟ thoughts

and feelings

Total: 39 33 6 46 6


45

Based on table 3.1, we can conclude that there are 39 statements

represented 46 strategies, divided into six strategy groups (Oxford, 1990). Some

statements were represented one strategy since the main purposes of the

activities were same. The statements four and five represented a single strategy

that is „repeating‟ strategy, while statements 25 and 26 were represented „seeking

practice opportunities‟ strategy. On other hand, for the statements 10, 11, 27, 30,

31, 33, and 39, each statement represented two or three strategies and the

remaining statements represented a strategy for each statement. The rationale for

the use of SILL which is adopted in the Sri Wahyuni (2013) thesis is that it is one

of published doctoral thesis in University of Canberra. Therefore we can make sure

that the questionnaire has high validity and reliability. The questionnaire employed

in this study was presented in the appendix 1.

SILL questionnaire has been used in many countries around the world to

investigate strategy use among groups of students of English as Second or Foreign

language. It has been proven to have very high validity and reliability, with

internal consistency coefficient of .90 (Oxford and Green, 1995). The

questionnaires consisted of five point scales ranging from always, often,

sometimes, rarely and never. This research applied Likert scale (rating scale) as a

technique in scoring system. According to Neuman (2006: 207), Likert scale is

widely used in survey research to indicate whether the participants agree or

disagree with the statement. The likert scale is called summative-rating since the

participants‟ score on the scale was computed by summing and averaging the

number of responses the participant gives. The categories in the questionnaire


46

were always or almost always true of me, usually true of me, sometimes true of

me, usually not true of me and never true of me. Each category was assigned as

follows; the category of always or almost always true of me was assigned a score

of 5, the category of usually true of me was assigned a score of 4, the category of

sometimes true of me was assigned a score of 3, the category of usually not true

of me was assigned a score of 2 and the category never true of me was assigned a

score of 1. The scoring grades for the questionnaire on speaking learning

strategies presented as follows.

Table 3.2 Scaling score of the Questionnaire

Option Score

Never or almost never true of me 1

Usually not true of me 2

Sometimes true of me 3

Usually true of me 4

Always or almost always true of me 5

In analyzing the data of the questionnaire the mean score and the standard

deviation for each learning strategy was analyzed. The mean score will showed

how frequent of strategy employed by the students. Therefore in order to find the

speaking learning strategies group employed by the EFL students, the reseracher

found the percentage of each category. It was found through sum all the scores for

each learning strategies group and divide it with the maximum scores for the

learning strategies group times 100 %. The percentage of each learning strategies

group will showed the frequency of the strategies employed.

Furthermore, the individual learning strategy was also found in this

research since it important to know the most of speaking strategy employed by the

EFL students. There were 39 statements consist of 46 individual speaking


47

learning strategy stated in the questionnaire, so it is needed to find the most

individual learning strategy employed by EFL students. Therefore, the mean score

and the standard deviation for each learning strategy presented. After that the

mean score of the questionnaire were categorized by Likert scaled strategy to

show the frequency of the speaking learning strategy employed by the EFL

students. The scale consist three categorizes, the high use which scale of the

scores between 3.50 - 5.00, the medium use which scale of the scores 2.50 – 3.49,

and the low use which scale of the score 1.00 – 2.49. Therefore, the result of the

questionnaire the categorization by Likert presented as follow.

Table 3.3 Likert scaled strategy adopted by Oxford (1990)

No Scale of the score Category

1 3.50 – 5.00 High use

2 2.50 – 3.49 Medium use

3 1.00 – 2.49 Low use

Based on the table 3.3, we can conclude that if the mean scores of the

learning strategy are between scores 3.50 – 5.00 categorized as high use strategy.

The mean scores of the learning strategy between scores 2.50 – 3.49 are

categorized as medium use strategy. At least, the mean scores between 1,00 –

2.49 are categorized as low use strategy.

2. Students’ Achievements

The students‟ achievements were needed for categorizing the successful

Indonesian EFL students and the less successful Indonesian EFL students. This research

focused on the students‟ speaking learning strategies; therefore it is important to get the

data about the students‟ achievements in speaking class. The students‟ achievements


48

consist of students‟ Grade Point Average (GPA) and their speaking score. Furthermore it

is important to find the correlation between the students‟ GPA and students speaking

scores since the speaking scores were only taken from semester one to four. On the other

hand, the GPA itself is the grade of the student in general not only in speaking class but

also other classes such as writing, reading, listening and linguistics. If the correlations

between the GPA and speaking score is positive, it means that the higher GPA, the better

speaking and vice versa. However if the result of the correlation is negative, it means

there is no relation between the students GPA and students‟ speaking score.

The process of finding the correlation was done by using descriptive

statistics and multiple correlation analysis. Based on the correlation analysis, it

was found that there is positive significance correlation between students‟ GPA

and speaking score of 183 Indonesian EFL students. The results of descriptive

statistics and the multiple correlation analysis were presented below.


49

Table 3.4 Correlation between Students‟ Speaking Score and GPA

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Speaking Score 3.5327 .46034 183

GPA 3.3761 .31857 183

Speaking‟s Score GPA

Speaking‟s

Score

Pearson Correlation 1 .622**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Sum of Squares and Cross-

products

38.569 16.597

Covariance .212 .091

N 183 183

GPA Pearson Correlation .622**

1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Sum of Squares and Cross-

products

16.597 18.470

Covariance .091 .101

N 183 183

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Based on the table of descriptive statistics, it was found that the mean of

EFL students‟ GPA is 3.3761 with the standard deviation is .31857, while the

mean for EFL students‟ speaking score is 3.5327 with the standard deviation is

.46034. In addition, it is shown on the correlations' table that the students' GPA

and their speaking scores are positively correlated since there the value of r =

0.622 (+). Based on this finding it can be concluded that if the higher GPA, the

better speaking scores and vice versa. Therefore this justification is valid to

employ in determining the group of successful EFL students and the group of less

successful EFL students since there is positive correlation between the GPA and

the speaking score. This research employed the students‟ GPA to categorize


50

between the successful EFL students and the less successful EFL students since

the GPA score is more represent the students‟ achivements than the speaking

score. In addition, there are only four classess that the students‟ should pass from

semester I to IV. The students were categorized into two groups. The

categorization of students GPA presented as follows.

Table 3.6 Students‟ Categorization

No Range Category

1 3.51 – 4.00 Successful Students

2 1.00 – 3.50 Less Successful Students

Based on the table above, the participants were divided into two groups,

the students who get the GPA in the range 3.51 – 4.00 (Cumlaude) are categorized

as the successful EFL students and the students who get average speaking score

less than 3.51 are categorized as the less successful EFL students.

3) Semi structured Interview

In conducting this research, the researcher applied semi structured

interviews in order to get the data of students‟ reasons in employing the speaking

learning strategies. The interviews should be guided conversations, meaning that

the researcher follows the line of inquiry and asks „non-threatening‟ questions in

an unbiased manner (Yin, 2009). In semi-structured interviews, there is a prompt

which requests certain information, but the exact shape of the response is not

predetermined. The interview will focus on the participants‟ speaking learning

strategies. Those students received several questions related to their speaking

learning strategies employed. There were six (6) randomly selected Indonesian

EFL students participated in the interviews; three of them categorized as the


51

successful students and three of them categorized as the less successful students.

The interviews were conducted in Indonesian language in order to make the

participants feel comfort in expressing their ideas and feelings. The interviews

were transcripted as the qualitative data. Some parts of the transcripts were

translated to show the finding of the research. The transcripts of the interview

were presented in the appendices.

E. DATA ANALYSIS

The data obtained from this study were analyzed quantitatively and

qualitatively. In analyzing the quantitative data, the aid of statistics was needed.

Gravetter & Wallnau (2002: 24) state that the term of statistics is used to refer to

methods for organizing, summarizing, and interpreting data. They argue that

statistical methods can be classified into two broad categories; descriptive

statistics and inferential statistics.

The descriptive statistics are statistical procedures that re used to

summarize, organize and simplify data. The inferential statistics consist of

techniques that allow the researchers to study samples and then make

generalizations about the populations from which they were selected. In doing this

mixed method, the researcher employed the descriptive statistics in order to

simplify the organization and presentation of the data. The descriptive statistics is

described by presenting the mean and the standard deviation. It is also employed

to find the frequency of speaking learning strategies group. The frequency of the

speaking learning strategies group employed by EFL students obtained from all


52

scores of each speaking learning strategies group and dividing by number of

maximum scores for each group.

The mean score obtained from the entire questionnaire items would

indicate the EFL students‟ speaking strategy use. The mean is computed by

summing all the scores and dividing by the number of the scores. Conceptually,

the mean is the score of each individually participants. The mean scores used to

indicate the learning strategies employed of specific groups of students especially

groups of the successful Indonesian EFL students and the less successful

Indonesian EFL students. In addition, the mean scores also used to indicate the

students learning strategy favored the most and the least. The standard deviation is

a measure of the standard distance from the mean. It determines whether the

scores are generally near or far from the mean.

The descriptive statistical analysis applied in this study in order to answer

the first and the second research question. All statistical analysis is conducted

with the help of SPSS version 17.0. On the other hand, the qualitative data of this

study constituted the reasons students employed the learning strategies. At last,

the researcher combined the findings of quantitative and qualitative data analysis

to conclude the results of this study.


53

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter will expose the research findings and discussion to answer the

problem formulation stated in Chapter I. Therefore, it will be presented and

discussion in two sections. The first section is research findings which presents

the quantitative and qualitative analysis in the form of table and chart. The second

section is discussion which presents the interpretation and analysis results of the

data used some related theories.

A. RESEARCH FINDINGS

This section provides the results of data analysis which are answering the

research questions. This part consists of three sections related to the research

questions. They are speaking learning strategies employed by the EFL students

the successful EFL students, speaking learning strategies employed by the less

successful EFL students and the reasons of the students‟ choice of strategies.

1. Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by the Successful Students

The quantitative analysis is applied in this study to find out the speaking

learning strategies employed by EFL students in order to answer the first research

question. The data is also applied to find out the speaking learning strategies

employed by successful and less successful students. The data of students‟

speaking learning strategies were taken from the questionnaire which consisted of

39 items based on the SILL questionnaires. There were 183 participants who took


54

part in this process of data collection. The data showed that the students use six

speaking learning strategies group by Oxford (1990). There are 46 speaking

strategies which consist of three memory strategies, nine cognitive strategies,

eight compensations strategies, 11 metacognitive strategies, 10 affective

strategies, and five social strategies. Those strategies were represented on the 39

statements questionnaires distributed to the students. The mean score for this

questionnaire is 3.31 with the SD is 1.11, which suggests that the average of the

students‟ responses represents to „somewhat true of me‟. On the other hand, it can

be concluded that the data of the questionnaire represented the students‟ speaking

learning strategies.

The data of was used to see the speaking learning strategies employed by

successful and less successful students. This categorization of the students was

based on the GPA. The successful are the students who have GPA more than 3.50

(cum laude) and the less successful are the students who have GPA less than 3.51.

The detail categorization of the students can be found in table 3.4. Based on the

categorization, there were 70 students of the successful students (GPA more than

3.50) and 113 students of the less successful students (GPA less than 3.51).

The successful students means that the students who have high

achievement scores in most of subjects offered by the English department such as

listening, speaking, reading, writing, structure and grammar, linguistics, literature

and other subjects offered by the departement. Therefore, the successful students

have high score achievement in speaking too. The results of the successful

students questionnaire response presented on the figure 4.1.


55

Figure 4.1 Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by the Successful Students

Based on the figure 4.1, the successful students employed six learning

strategies provided by Oxford (1990) with different frequencies. The speaking

learning strategies employed by the successful students are cognitive strategies

with percentage responses 71.8%, compensation strategies with percentage

responses 66.1%, metacognitive strategies with percentage responses 72.7%,

social strategies with percentage responses 61.9%, memory strategies with

percentage 56% and affective strategies with percentage responses 56.8%. From

the results above, we can conclude that the successful Indonesian EFL students

employed metacognitive startegies as the most strategies followed by the

cognitive, the compensation, the social, the affective and the memory strategies as

the least employed by the successful Indonesian EFL students. In addition, the

individual strategy of the speaking learning strategy employed by the EFL

students which adapted from the Oxford presented in the table 4.1.

56,0

71,8

66,1

72,7

56,8 61,9

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

Students Responses (%)


56

Table 4.1 Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by Successful

Strategy Item L2 speaking strategies Mean

Memory

1 Placing new words into a context 3.12

2 Representing sounds in memory 2.40

3 Structured reviewing 2.80

Cognitive

4&5 Repeating 3.56

6 Formally practicing with sound system 3.79

7 Recombining 3.40

8 Practicing naturalistically 3.13

9 Using resources for receiving and sending messages 4.09

10 Recognizing and using formulas and patterns 3.31

Reasoning deductively 3.31

11 Translating 3.87

Transferring 3.87

Compens

ation

12 Using mime or gesture 3.54

13 Coining word 3.16

14 Using a circumlocution or synonym 3.97

15 Switching to the mother tongue 3.30

16 Getting help 3.19

17 Avoiding communication partially or totally 2.53

18 Selecting the topic 2.99

19 Adjusting or approximating the message 3.76

Metacogn

itive

20 Overviewing and linking with already known material 3.74

21 Paying attention 4.27

22 Delaying speech production to focus on listening 2.94

23 Finding out about language learning 3.90

24 Organizing 2.97

25&26 Seeking practice opportunities 3.55

27 Setting goals and objectives 3.51

Identifying the purpose of a language task 3.51

Planning for a language task 3.51

28 Self-monitoring 4.01

29 Self-evaluating 3.87

Affective

30 Using progressive relaxation, deep breathing, or

meditation

3.64

Using music 3.64

Using laughter 3.64

31 Making positive statement 3.79

Taking risk wisely 3.79

32 Rewarding yourself 2.47

33 Listening to your body 2.84

Using a checklist 2.84

34 Writing a language learning diary 1.97

35 Discussing your feelings with someone else 2.31

Social

36 Asking for correction 2.26

37 Cooperating with peers 3.63

38 Cooperating with proficient users of the new language 2.61

39 Developing cultural understanding 3.89


57

Becoming aware of others‟ thoughts and feelings 3.89

Total: 6 39 46

Note:

M : Mean, SD : Standard Deviation, C : Category based on the frequency

Orange: Favored the most, green: Favored the last

Based on the table 4.1, the top five highest speaking learning strategies

employed by the successful Indonesian EFL students were item 21 „paying

attention‟, item 9 „using resources for receiving and sending messages‟ and item

28, „self-monitoring‟. The item 21 „paying attention‟ has the highest mean with

the mean score is 4.27. The second highest mean with the mean score is 4.09

belongs to the item 9 „using resources for receiving and sending messages‟. The

item 28 „self-monitoring‟ has the third highest, with mean score is 4.01. These

three mean scores indicate that the use of these strategies is very high, and since

„paying attention‟ has the highest mean score, this is the strategy that students

favored the most.

On the other hand, the three lowest scores were item 34 „writing a

language learning diary‟, item 36 „asking for correction‟ and item 35 „discussing

your feelings with someone else‟. The item 34 „writing a language learning diary‟

has the lowest mean with mean score is 1.97. The second lowest mean with mean

score is 2.26 belong to the item 36 „asking for correction‟. The item 35

„discussing your feelings with someone else‟ has the third lowest mean with mean

score is 2.31. Those three means are categorized low frequently in using those

strategies.


58

2. The Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by Less Successful Students

The less successful students were the Indonesian EFL students who have

the GPA less than 3.50. These students do not have high achievement scores in

most of subjects offered by the English department such as listening, speaking,

reading, writing, structure and grammar, linguistics, literature and many more.

Some of them have high scores in some subjects and the other in different

subjects. There is significances positive relation between GPA and the speaking

scores. It means that the less successful students do not get high scores in

speaking. The figure 4.2 presents the data of speaking learning strategies

employed by the less successful Indonesian EFL students.

Figure 4.2 Speaking Learning Strategies Employed by the Less Successful

Students

Based on the figure 4.2, it is concluded that the less successful Indonesian

EFL students employed those six learning strategies in different frequencies. The

56,0

67,5 68,3 70,9

61,1 63,1

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

Students Responses (%)


59

less successful students were employed the cognitive strategies with percentage

use 67.5%, the compensation strategies with percentage use 68.3%, the

metacognitive strategies with percentage use 70.9%, the affective strategies with

percentage use 61.1%, the social strategies with percentage use 63.17%, and the

memory strategies with percentage use 56%. We conclude that the less successful

students employed the metacognitive strategies as the most employed strategies

followed by the compensation, the cognitive, the social, the affective and the

memory strategies. The individual speaking learning strategy employed by the

less successful students are presented in table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Speaking Learning Strategies Employed Less Successful Students

Strategy

groups

Item L2 speaking strategies Mean

Memory

1 Placing new words into a context 3.09

2 Representing sounds in memory 2.58

3 Structured reviewing 2.70

Cognitive

4&5 Repeating 3.40

6 Formally practicing with sound system 3.61

7 Recombining 3.23

8 Practicing naturalistically 2.86

9 Using resources for receiving and sending

messages

3.87

10 Recognizing and using formulas and patterns 3.18

Reasoning deductively 3.18

11 Translating 3.39

Transferring 3.39

Compensation

12 Using mime or gesture 3.75

13 Coining word 3.28

14 Using a circumlocution or synonym 3.89

15 Switching to the mother tongue 3.60

16 Getting help 3.39

17 Avoiding communication partially or totally 2.67

18 Selecting the topic 3.01

19 Adjusting or approximating the message 3.74

Metacognitive 20 Overviewing and linking with already known

material

3.67


60

21 Paying attention 4.17

22 Delaying speech production to focus on

listening

3.28

23 Finding out about language learning 3.90

24 Organizing 2.89

25&26 Seeking practice opportunities 3.29

27 Setting goals and objectives 3.36

Identifying the purpose of a language task 3.36

Planning for a language task 3.36

28 Self-monitoring 3.88

29 Self-evaluating 3.73

Affective

30 Using progressive relaxation, deep breathing,

or meditation

3.74

Using music 3.74

Using laughter 3.74

31 Making positive statement 3.68

Taking risk wisely 3.68

32 Rewarding yourself 2.47

33 Listening to your body 3.34

Using a checklist 3.34

34 Writing a language learning diary 2.17

35 Discussing your feelings with someone else 2.89

Social

36 Asking for correction 2.81

37 Cooperating with peers 3.47

38 Cooperating with proficient users of the new

language 2.75

39

Developing cultural understanding 3.52

Becoming aware of others‟ thoughts and

feelings 3.52

Total: 6 39 46

Note:

M : Mean, SD : Standard Deviation, C : Category based on the frequency

Orange: Favored the most, green: favored the last

Based on the table 4.3, the top three highest speaking learning strategies

employed by the less successful students items 14 „using a circumlocution or

synonym‟, 21 „paying attention‟ and 23 „finding out about language learning‟.

The item 21 „paying attention‟ has the highest mean of all with mean score is

4.17. The second highest belongs to item 23 „finding out about language learning‟


61

with mean score is 3.90. The item 14 „using a circumlocution or synonym‟ has the

third highest with mean score is 3.89. These three mean scores indicate that the

use of these strategies is high. These results conclude that the less successful

students employed paying attention, finding about language learning and using

circumlocution or synonym as their most speaking learning strategies with the

paying attention strategy as the most strategy students employed.

On the other hand, the results of the lowest strategies employed by the less

successful students and the EFL students in general are same. The results showed

that the learning strategies represented on item 34 „writing a language learning

diary‟, item 32 „rewarding yourself‟ and item 2 „representing sounds in memory‟

were categorized the lowest strategies employed by the less successful students.

The item 34 „writing a language learning diary‟, has the lowest of all with mean

score is 2.17. The second lowest mean is 2.47 belongs to item 32 „rewarding

yourself‟. The item 2 „representing sounds in memory‟ has the third lowest mean

with mean score is 2.58. These first two mean scores indicate that the students‟

use of the first two strategies is low, and medium for the last strategy.

Furthermore, it is also showed that the less successful student do not like to use

rhymes to remember new English words, give themselves reward or treat when

they do well in English, and write down their feelings in language learning diary

as their strategy in learning English with writing their feeling language diary as

the strategy least employed.


62

3. Reasons of the Students’ Choices of Strategies

In conducting this research, the interview method was used in order to find

out the reasons of students choices of strategies. Based on the results of the

second and third research questions, it was found that both of students group

either successful or less successful students employed paying attention strategies

as their most speaking learning strategies. Both of the groups showed that they put

more attention to someone speaking in English. However, there are some

differences of the most speaking learning strategies employed by the successful

students and the less successful students.

The successful students employed „paying attention‟, „using resources for

receiving and sending messages‟ and „self-monitoring‟ as their speaking learning

strategies, while the less successful employed the „paying attention‟, „finding

about language learning‟ and „using circumlocution or synonym‟ as their speaking

learning strategies. It means that the successful students pay attention to someone

speaking in English, watch English TV shows or movie spoken in English, and

notice their mistakes in English as well as use the information to do a better in

English. While the less successful students pay attention when someone is

speaking English, find out how to be a better learner of English, and use

alternative word or phrase that means the same thing when they cannot think of

English word.

The interviews were conducted in order to know the reasons behind the

students‟ choice of the learning strategies. Before conducting the interviews, three

successful and three less successful students were randomly chosen. After that,


63

the semi structured interviews were conducted on them. The successful students

were Mg, Tr and In, while the less successful students were An, Rr and Ss. Some

of the interview transcripts were presented in this part to answer the third research

question.

Griffiths (2008: 87) mentioned that language learning strategies are

activities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating their own

language learning. It means that the language learning strategies are conscoiusly

chosen, but Zhang & Goh (2006) argue that despite the awareness of the

usefulness of strategies, students were not yet conscious and confident strategy

users. This statement suggests that the students did not use strategies consciously

and confidently, although they were aware of the usefulness of them. This implies

that students‟ awareness of the usefulness of the strategies was one of the

„reasons‟ or „necessary requisites‟ for them to use strategies consciously and

confidently.

Oxford (2011: 180) says that “... more frequent use of learning strategies

was related to three learner factors: strategy awareness, perceptions of the

importance of English, and self-perception of high English proficiency.” Both Lee

& Oxford (2008) and Oxford (2011) do not explicitly claim the three learner

factors as the „reasons‟ why students used strategies more frequently. However, to

provide a basic grasp of the reason why students use strategies in specific ways,

the researcher summarize that the relationship between the frequent use of

strategies and the three learner factors is causal, at least, as one of the possibilities.

Therefore, the students employed strategies frequently because of their


64

perceptions on the importance of English, English-learning self-image, and

strategy awareness.

a. Strategy Awareness

Based on the results of the research questions one and two, the Indonesian

EFL students employed paying attention strategy, using resources for receiving

strategy and sending messages strategy, self-monitoring strategy, finding about

language learning strategy and using circumlocution or synonym strategy as their

speaking learning strategies. The interviews were conducted to get information

the reasons of students‟ choices. One of the students‟ reasons in choosing the

learning strategies was strategy awareness. The results of interviews related to the

strategy awareness were presented as follow.

From the interviews conducted, it was found that paying attention as their

best learning strategies since they do not have many chances to communicate in

English outside in the classroom, they put more attention when the other people

speak in English. That strategy was confirmed and stated in the transcripts below.

Mg30 : For the example, I learn their culture and learn how to use some

vocabulary like slang language. When I watch the video which spoken

in English and learn how to pronounce the new words, usually I pause

the video, then practice the pronunciation and repeat it several

times. (Mg30/STR.AW/2017)

In22 :… like she said before, the basic of speaking is listening. We can

speak well if we listen well like watching movie. Through watching

movie, we can learn the using of some English expressions and words

and used the new words in our life. I think it is easier to see the use of

the words after listen the pronunciation of the words firstly. .. (Laugh)

(Mg22/STR.AW/2017)

Mg mentioned that she pause the video and then practiced it several times.

The pausing video means she pays attention in when she watched the movie. In


65

addition, In also confirmed that she employed the strategy since she mentioned

how important listening as part of paying attention. As we know, it is quite hard to

communicate with foreign people or native speaker in Indonesia so they learn

English speaking from the movie or songs. They put more attention when they

listening to the English movies or songs. She mentioned that the basic of speaking

is listening; if we have good listening so does our speaking. It means if we pay

attention to the someone is speaking in English, we can have a good speaking

since we pay more attention on how they spell and pronoun the words. From the

statements, we can conclude that the reason of students‟ choice is the strategy

awareness. The students aware that through paying attention they can get more

knowledge. They aware with the learning strategy they used is the ultimate reason

behind the students‟ choice.

In line with the successful students, the less successful students also

employed the strategy of paying attention. In the interviews conducted, the

students confirm that strategy awareness is one of the reason students‟ choices in

employing the strategy. That strategy was confirmed and stated in the transcripts

below.

Ss34 : I like watching movie and listening to the music spoken in English.

I am usually curious how to pronounce and use some new words

or phrases that I found in the movie. When I found the new words

or phrases, I find out more about the words, and then I use it in my

daily. (Ss34/STR.AW/2017)

Rr12 : Yes, mas. If I watch the movie or listen to the songs, I really pay

attention their pronunciation, so I can pronounce it like them. I

also learn how they use those words in their daily life. (Rr12/STR.AW/2017)

Ss22 : Other inputs are from teacher or lecture we also get the input how to

be a better in English from TV shows, songs, film or books. In my

opinion, the input that really influence is if we can have a


66

conversation with the native speaker directly. If we can speak with the

native speaker or foreigner, we can many new vocabularies.

Moreover if we can spend more time with them, I am sure we can

get a lot of new vocabularies. (Ss22/STR.AW/2017)

Rr37 : Sometimes, I communicate in English with my friends. I also learn

that the English from the movies that is speaking in English

because I can learn the intonation of the word, the pronunciation

of the word and more important is the discourse of the word.

(Rr37/STR.AW/2017)

An34 : ... Other learning strategies are listening to music or watching a

movie that is speaking in English, so I can understand more about

the pronunciation and the stress of the words. Besides that, I

usually check the pronunciation on the dictionary.

(An34/STR.AW/2017)

The transcripts above confirm that the less successful students employed

the paying attention strategy because they realize that Ss mentioned that she

usually curious on pronunciation some new words so she put more attention when

someone speaking in English. In conclusion, the reasons their choice of paying

attention strategy is their awareness on how useful the strategy is. Rr mentioned

that she employed the paying attention strategy because she want to speak like

native. We can conclude that their belief and their awareness on paying attention

strategy is the reason behind their choice.

The successful students employed „using resources for receiving and

sending massages‟ as one of the most speaking learning strategy employed. It

means that the students watch English language TV shows spoken in English or

go to movies spoken in English. Based on the interviews conducted, all of them

confirmed that they employed this strategy in learning English speaking. The

transcripts below showed that the reason behind the strategy is the strategy

awareness.


67

Mg18 : What else? Hmm…I used to watch the movie. I like watching movie

and listening a song in English, but it doesn‟t mean that Indonesian

movie or song are not good. When I watch the movie which spoken

in English, I amazed with their way speak in English. I also find a

new vocabulary and know the good pronunciation. (Mg18/STR.AW/2017)

Tr : Basically, I like watch a movie. Through watching movie, I can

entertain myself and learn about English unconsciously. So,

learning the English is just through follow the story of the movie. We learn how to pronounce new words too. (An34/STR.AW/2017)

In : Sometimes if I find the new words in the movie, it makes me curious.

So, I repeat the movie several times. I can learn the use of slang

language also from Australian movie which usually many slang

languages will presented. Sometimes the knowledge of the slang

language helps us in the study since we have Australian Culture

Class too. So, learning the English through movie is very effective

in my opinion. (In22/STR.AW/2017)

Those transcripts confirmed that the successful students watch English

language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English. They

mentioned that they like to watch movie in English since through watching movie

they can learn many things such as slang language. Tria mentioned that through

watching movie, she can entertain myself and learn about English easily. Either

Mg or Tria mentioned that they like watching movie because they can learn the

English through the movie. In addition, In mentioned that she can learn authentic

language in the movie. Those statements confirm that the reasons of their choices

are that they aware how benefit the strategy is. They aware that through film or

TV shows spoken in English, they can learn authentic and varied language

unconsciously and fun.


68

b. The Importance of English

Based on the results of the research questions one and two, the Indonesian

EFL students employed paying attention strategy, using resources for receiving

strategy and sending messages strategy, self-monitoring strategy, finding about

language learning strategy and using circumlocution or synonym strategy as their

speaking learning strategies. The interviews were conducted to get information

the reasons of students‟ choices. One of the students‟ reasons in choosing the

learning strategies was the importance of English.

One of the students‟ strategies was self monitoring. The students notice

their English mistakes and use the information to help them do better means that

the successful students aware that they are making mistakes and want to correct

their mistakes in order to be a better learner. The results of interviews confirmed

that the the reasons behind students‟ choice was the students realize the

importance of English.

Mg22 : Talk with our friends in English is one of strategies. Our environment

were forced us to communicate in English like discussing the

grammar class in English when the class end. We know sometimes

we make mistakes in speaking, and realize that what is mistake is

more important. (Mg22/IMP.EN/2017)

Tr93 : Yes. Automatically, they will correct us. We feel that our friend will

automatically remind us the right words or pronunciation. It

became the pattern in our life whether in the campus or boarding

houses. (Tr93/IMP.EN/2017)

In92 : I prefer to study with my friends if I study alone no one correct

me mas. We will confuse in the using or meaning of the words.

However, if we learn together with our friends they will correct us

automatically. Moreover, I feel more comfort. Automatically our

friends will correct us like this is not true and this is true. (In92/IMP.EN/2017)

Tr104: I feel good, maybe In and I have different learning strategies. I used

those strategies because I feel good and comfort. (Tr104/IMP.EN/2017)


69

The transcripts showed that the successful students confirmed they

employed the self-monitoring strategy in learning speaking. Mg mentioned that it

is important knowing their mistakes in speaking English so they can correct them

and make them better students. That statement confirmed that they notice their

English mistakes and use the information to help them to be a better learner. In

addition, since the strategy is already applied in their life, it becomes their habit.

They realize that English is important subject for them, Tria mentioned that she

employed the strategies since she felt good and comfort using the strategy. They

realize how the important the English is, therefore they try to have perfect in

English. On the other hand, they choose the strategy that is easy to implemented

for them. They want to enjoy it as much as they can. Therefore we can conclude

that the reason behind the students‟ choice the strategy of self-monitoring was the

importance of the English.

The less successful students employed finding about language learning

strategy means that that the less successful students find out how to be a better

learner of English. They realize that English is very important for them, so they

want to have the right model in learning English. In the interviews, it is confirmed

that they employed the strategy their reasons of choosing the strategy.

Rr28 : Sometimes, if there is someone that has good pronunciation, I

asked them how they can speak like that. However, I think we

cannot learn their accent because that is their characteristics. If they

have good diction or choices of the words, I usually looking the

reasons behind. . (Rr28/IMP.EN/2017)

Ss20 : Yes, because to be a better learner is good to improve our skill.

(Ss20/IMP.EN/2017)


70

Those transcripts confirmed that they employed finding about language learning

strategy. Rr mentioned that she curios how the better learner study, while Ss

confirmed that finding how to be a learner is good since it can motivate her to

improve her skills. On the other hand the reason of their choices of strategy is

their awareness on how important of finding out to be better learner strategy is.

The less successful students employed using circumlocution or synonym

strategy means that the students use alternative word or phrase that means the

same thing when they cannot think of English word. Based on the interviews, it is

confirmed that the students employed this strategy and the reasons behind their

choices.

Ss18 : I used alternative words because my vocabulary is limited. When I

want to say some words, but I forgot the words I used other words

which have similar meaning. So, what is appear in my mind, I used it

directly. (Ss18/IMP.EN/2017)

An22 : If I want to express some words but I forget the words, I use

alternative words that have similar meaning even it is longer.

(An22/IMP.EN/2017)

The transcripts above confirmed that the less successful students

employed using circumlocution or synonym strategy. Either Ss or An confirmed

that they employed the strategy in learning English especially in speaking. On the

other hand, the reason of the students‟ strategy choices is their limited vocabulary.

Ss mentioned in the interview that she employed this strategy since her

vocabularies are limited.


71

B. DISCUSSION

There are four findings found in this research. The first is that most

speaking learning strategies employed by Indonesian EFL students is

metacognitive strategies. It means that the Indonesian EFL students comprises

centering one‟s learning (overviewing and linking with already known material,

paying attention, and delaying speech production to focus on listening), arranging

and planning one‟s learning (finding out about language learning, organizing,

setting goals and objectives, identifying the purpose of a language task, planning

for a language task, and seeking practice opportunities), and evaluating one‟s

learning (self-monitoring, self-evaluating), this is in line with the Oxford (1990)

mentioned in his previous research. This result also confirmed what the result

found by Alfian (2014). He found that the students were reported to use

metacognitive and social strategies more frequently.

Furthermore, the top three highest individual strategy employed by the

students were the paying attention strategy, using resources for receiving and

sending messages strategy and self-monitoring strategy. As the paying attention

strategy has the highest mean score, it means that the paying attention strategy

Indonesian EFL students favored the most. In other words, the Indonesian EFL

students put more attention when someone speak in English and used that strategy

as their best strategy in learning English speaking. In addition, the findings also

proved that the EFL students prefer to watch English TV shows or movies spoken

in English and to notice their English mistakes and use the information to help

them do better in English as Oxford (1990) stated in his previous research.


72

The second finding is that the successful Indonesian EFL students

employed metacognitive strategies as the most strategies employed and the

affective strategies as the least employed by the successful Indonesian EFL

students. In other words most the successful Indonesian EFL comprises centering

one‟s learning (overviewing and linking with already known material, paying

attention, and delaying speech production to focus on listening), arranging and

planning one‟s learning (finding out about language learning, organizing, setting

goals and objectives, identifying the purpose of a language task, planning for a

language task, and seeking practice opportunities), and evaluating one‟s learning

(self-monitoring, self-evaluating) as stated in the by Oxford (1990) in his

research. Moreover the top three highest speaking learning strategies employed by

the successful Indonesian EFL students were paying attention strategy, using

resources for receiving and sending messages and self-monitoring strategy. In

other words, we can conclude that the successful student pay attention to someone

speaking in English, watch English TV shows or movie spoken in English, and

notice their mistakes in English as well as use the information to do a better in

English when they learn English especially in speaking based on the research by

Oxford (1990).

The third is that the less successful students employed the metacognitive

strategies as the most employed strategies, while the memory strategies as the

least employed strategies. In other words the less successful students control their

own cognition. They also comprises centering one‟s learning (overviewing and

linking with already known material, paying attention, and delaying speech


73

production to focus on listening), arranging and planning one‟s learning (finding

out about language learning, organizing, setting goals and objectives, identifying

the purpose of a language task, planning for a language task, and seeking practice

opportunities), and evaluating one‟s learning (self-monitoring, self-evaluating) as

stated by Oxford (1990) in his previous study. Furthermore the less successful

students employed paying attention, finding about language learning and using

circumlocution or synonym as their most speaking learning strategies employed.

In other words as Oxford mentioned in his previous research, it means that the

less successful students pay attention when someone is speaking English, find out

how to be a better learner of English, and use alternative word or phrase that

means the same thing when they cannot think of English word when they learn

English.

Based on the second and third findings, it was found that either the

successful students or the less successful students employed the metacognitive

strategies as their most learning strategies employed. In addition, both of students

group also employed paying attention as their most speaking learning strategies

use. These findings were interested since the students employed the same learning

strategies but the results are different. However the reasons behind this different

stated by Lee & Oxford in their previous study. Lee & Oxford mentioned that

more proficient learners employ a wider range of strategies more efficiently than

less proficient learners do Lee & Oxford (2008: 9). In addition Cohen (1998: 8)

points out that strategies themselves are not inherently good or bad, but have the

potential to be used effectively. Therefore we can conclude that the reason of


74

different learning results with the same learning strategies employed is way of

using the strategy. This is in line with Vann & Abraham previous study. Vann &

Abraham (1990: 190-191) argue that less successful learners still appear to be

active strategy users, but they often failed to apply strategies appropriately to the

task at hand.

The fourth finding is related to the Indonesian EFL students‟ reasons of

choosing speaking learning strategies. The successful students employed paying

attention strategy, using resources for receiving and sending messages strategy

and self-monitoring strategy as their speaking learning strategies, while the less

successful employed the paying attention strategy, finding about language

learning strategy and using circumlocution or synonym strategy as their speaking

learning strategies. It was found that the reasons of the students choices strategies

is that their awareness on how important the strategy is. This is in line with

Oxford on his previous study. Oxford (2011: 180) mentioned that more frequent

use of learning strategies was related to three learner factors: strategy awareness,


proficiency. This implies that students‟ awareness of the usefulness of the

strategies was one of the „reasons‟ or „necessary pRrquisites‟ for them to use

strategies consciously and confidently. It concludes that the students‟ awareness

put important role in differentiate between the successful Indonesian EFL students

and the less successful Indonesian EFL students. The successful students are more

aware in using the speaking learning strategies than the less successful students.

In addition, Ellis (1994) points out those students‟ strategies differences as the


75

results of the influence of the interrelationships between student strategies and

individual student differences as well as between student strategies and language

learning outcomes, the strategies that students employ can be influenced by

individual student difference variables, and can also have effects on them.


76

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter consists of three parts. First part is about research results

which also drawing conclusions from the research questions stated in problem

formulation of this study. The second part is giving the implementation of this

study. Then, the third part is about the suggestions for several parties who are

related to this study.

A. CONCLUSIONS

This research was attempted to find the speaking learning strategies

employed by the Indonesian EFL students. There were 183 Indonesian EFL

students participated in this research from Yogyakarta State University. The

research is also aimed to find out the speaking learning strategies employed by the

successful EFL students and the less successful EFL students, and their reasons in

choosing the learning strategies. From the study, there were four conclusions of

this study.

The first is that most speaking learning strategies employed by Indonesian

EFL students is metacognitive strategies with percentage 71.6%. It followed by

the cognitive strategies with percentage 69.1%, the compensation strategies with

percentage 67.4%, the social strategies with percentage 62.6%, the affective

strategies with percentage 59,5% and the memory strategies with percentage 56%.

Furthermore, the top three highest individual strategy employed by the students


77

were the paying attention strategy with the mean scores 4.21 and SD is 0.81, using

resources for receiving and sending messages strategy 3.96 and SD is 1.00, and

self-monitoring strategy 3.93 and SD is 0.78. As the paying attention strategy has

the highest mean score, it means that the paying attention strategy Indonesian EFL

students favored the most. In other words, most of Indonesian EFL students put

more attention when someone speak in English and used that strategy as their best

strategy in learning English speaking.

The second is that the successful Indonesian EFL students employed

metacognitive strategies as the most strategies employed with percentage

responses 72.7% and the affective strategies as the least employed by the

successful Indonesian EFL students with percentage responses 56.8%. Moreover

the top three highest speaking learning strategies employed by the successful

Indonesian EFL students are paying attention strategy with mean scores is 4.27,

using resources for receiving strategy with the mean scores is 4.09, and sending

messages and self-monitoring strategy with the mean scores is 4.01.

The third is that the less successful students employed the metacognitive

strategies as the most employed strategies with percentage use 70.9%, while the

memory strategies as the least employed strategies with percentage use 56%,.

Furthermore the less successful students employed paying attention strategy with

mean scores is 4.17, finding about language learning with mean score is 3.90 and

using circumlocution or synonym as their most speaking learning strategies

employed with mean score is 3.89.


78

The fourth is related to the Indonesian EFL students reasons of choosing

speaking learning strategies. The successful students employed paying attention

strategy, using resources for receiving and sending messages strategy and self-

monitoring strategy as their speaking learning strategies, while the less successful

employed the paying attention strategy, finding about language learning strategy

and using circumlocution or synonym strategy as their speaking learning

strategies. It was found that the reasons of the students choices strategies is that

their awareness on how important the strategy is. This is in line with Oxford on

his previous study. Oxford (2011: 180) mentioned that more frequent use of

learning strategies was related to three learner factors: strategy awareness,


proficiency. This implies that students‟ awareness of the usefulness of the

strategies was one of the „reasons‟ or „necessary pRrquisites‟ for them to use

strategies consciously and confidently. It concludes that the students‟ awareness

put important role in differentiate between the successful Indonesian EFL students

and the less successful Indonesian EFL students. The successful students are more

aware with their mistakes than the less successful students.

B. IMPLICATIONS

Finally, it is believed that these findings have several significant

implications for encouraging educators and teachers who want to teach speaking

since this research provide some speaking learning strategies employed by the

Indonesian EFL students. The teaching materials or the teaching method can be


79

adjusted with the speaking learning strategies employed by the students. The

findings of this research also have important implications for students. The

students can improve their speaking skills through applying some speaking

learning strategies employed by the successful students since it is already

approved that the strategies works well. The findings of this research also have

important implications for further research opportunities in the EFL or ESL

contexts. It is expected that the findings will be used as starting points to conduct

another research. There are many components which can be used to do the

research, for instance curriculum, materials, teaching method, teaching media, etc.

Furthermore, the findings will also help the researchers and future researcher

explore the speaking learning strategies employed by the students. In addition,

this research also has important implications for educators, curriculum designers

and researcher who conduct research in EFL context.

C. SUGGESTIONS

This research focused on the speaking learning strategies employed by

Indonesian EFL students. In general, the coverage of this study is still very broad

and related researchers for further investigation of this phenomenon is obviously

necessary. By looking at the findings and the facts about speaking learning

strategies, however, those remain limited in several aspects. Therefore, as

suggestions for further researches, the studies will be more comprehensive if the

participants are come from more various universities. Also, future researches may

expand the area of the researchers as EFL countries and ESL countries. Moreover,


80

it is suggested for future researchers to conduct research with more complex data

triangulation in order to recognize the results from different perspectives and to

make date more valid. In addition, in a university context, the lecturers are also

suggested to help their students to employ some speaking learning strategies since

the strategy can be learn in order to improve the students speaking skills. The

students also suggested applying more various speaking learning strategies.

However, a similar research may be repeated in others related topics such as

curriculum, materials and teaching method.


81

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alfian. (2011). Language learning strategies of high school students. Media

Akademika, 26 (1), 21-67.

Anam, Syafi‟ul & Elke, Stracke. (2016). Language learning strategies of

Indonesian primary school students: in Relation to Self-efficacy Beliefs.

Elsevier System Journal (60), 1-10.

Bluman, A.G. (2008). Elementary statistics: A step by step approach 4th edition.

Boston: McGraw Hill.

Brown, G. and G. Yule. (1983). Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning & teaching. New York:

Longman.

Brown, H. D. ( 2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to

language pedagogy. San Fransisco: Pearson education.

. (2001). Language assessment: principles and classroom

practices. Cambridge: Longman.

. (2004). Language ssessment: Principles and classroom

practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education

. (2007). Principles of language teaching and learning. New

York: Longman.

Cameron, Lynne. (2001). Teaching language to young learners. Cambridge:


Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and

researchers. New York: Newbury House.

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London

& New York: Longman.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed method

approaches. Thous and Oaks: Sage Publications.

Dreyer, C. & Oxford, Rebecca L. (1996). Language learning strategies around

the world: cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 61-74). Manoa: University of

Hawaii Press..

Ehrman, M. & Oxford, Rebecca L. (1990). Adult language learning styles and

strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 73

(3), 1-13.


82

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Gravetter, F.J. & I.B., Wallnau. (2002). Essential of statistics for the behaviorial

sciences 4th edition. Canada: Wadsworth.

Green, J. M. & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2

proficiency, & gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.

Griffiths, C. (Ed.). (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge:


Gulo, W. (2002). Metodologi penelitian. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Widiarsarana

Indonesia.

Harmer, Jeremy. (2007). The practice of english language teaching. London:

Pearson Education.

Hsiao. & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning

strategies: a confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal,

86(iii), 368-383.

Hughes, Rebecca. (2006). Spoken English, TESOL, & applied linguistics:

challenges for theory & practice. New York: Pacgrave Macmillan.

Lee, K.R. & Oxford, Rebecca L. (2008). Understing EFL learners‟ strategy use &

strategy awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 7-32.

Lunt, E.H. (2000). The learning strategies of adult immigrant learners of english:

quantitative & qualitative perspectives. Doctoral thesis, University of

Melbourne.

Mistar, Junaedi, Zuhairi Alfan & Parlindungan, Firman. (2014). learning

strategies by indonesian senior high school EFL learners, Korea TESOL

Journal, 10, 52-74.

Mistar, J., Zuhairi Alfan & Parlindungan, Firman. (2014). Strategies of learning

english writing skill by indonesian senior high school students. Arab World

English Journal, 5 (1), 290-303.

Neuman, W.L. (2000). Social research methods: qualitative & quantitative

approaches 4th

edition. Boston: Pearson Education Company.

O‟Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language

acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford: Advanced learner’s dictionary (7th

Ed.) (2005). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.


83

Oxford, Rebecca L. 1990. Language learning strategies: what every teacher

should know. The University of California: Newbury House Publisher.

Oxford, Rebecca L. (2011). Research timeline: Strategies for learning a second or

foreign language. Language teaching, 44(2), 167-180.

Park, G. (1997). Language Learning Strategies & English Proficiency in Korean

University Students, Foreign language annals, 30 (2), 211-221.

Richards, Jack C. 2015. Key issues in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Razmojo, S.A. & Ardekani, S. Ghasemi. (2011). A model of speaking strategies

for EFL learners. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 64/4,

pp.116-142.

Riazi, A. & Khodadadi, F. (2007). The effect of EFL students‟ level of

proficiency & gender on their use of speaking proficiency. Journal of

Teaching English Language & Literature, 1(2), 99-116.

Scott, T. 2005. How to teach speaking. London: Longman.

Vann, R. J. & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language

learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 177-198.

Wahyuni, Sri. (2013). L2 speaking strategies employed by indonesian EFL

tertiary students across proficiency & gender. Doctoral thesis, University

of Canberra Australia.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language

learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203-243.

Zhang, D. & Goh, C. M. (2006). Strategy knowledge & perceived strategy use:

singaporean students‟ awareness of listening & speaking strategies.

Language Awareness, 15(3), 199-219.


84

APPENDICES


Documents

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI - core.ac.uk · There were four findings found in this study. The first is that most speaking learning strategies employed by Indonesian EFL