Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING
STRATEGIES (LLS) AND STUDENTS THINKING STYLES AT
TWELVE GRADE OF SMA NEGERI 5 SELAYAR
A THESIS
submitted as Fulfillment to Accomplish Sarjana Degree
at Faculry of Teacher Training and Education
Muhammadiyah University of Makassar
SUMIATI
10535648315
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTEMENT
FAKULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR
2020
ii
iii
iv
UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH MAKASSAR
FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN
Jln. Sultan Alauddin No.259 Telp (0411) 860 132 Makassar 90221
SURAT PERNYATAAN
Saya yang bertandatangan di bawah ini:
Nama : SUMIATI
Judul : The Correlation Between Language Learning
Strategies (LLS) And Students Thinking Styles
At Twelve Grade Of Sma Negeri 5 Selayar
No. Stambuk : 10535648315
Program : Strata Satu (S1) Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Dengan ini menyatakan bahwa:
Skripsi yang saya ajukan di depan tim penguji adalah hasil karya saya
sendiri. Bukan hasil ciplakan atau dibuatkan oleh siapa pun.
Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan penuh kesadaran.
Makassar, 2020
Yang Membuat Pernyataan
SUMIATI
v
UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH MAKASSAR
FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN
Jln. Sultan Alauddin No.259 Telp (0411) 860 132 Makassar 90221
SURAT PERJANJIAN
Saya yang bertandatangan di bawah ini:
Name : SUMIATI
Reg. No : 10535648315
Program : Strata Satu (S1) Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Title : The Correlation Between Language Learning
Strategies (LLS) And Students Thinking Styles At
Twelve Grade Of Sma Negeri 5 Selayar
Dengan ini menyatakan perjanjian sebagai berikut:
1. Mulai dari penyusunan proposal sampai selesainya skripsi saya, saya akan
menyusun skripsi sendiri.
2. Dalam menyusun skripsi saya, saya akan selalu melakukan konsultasi dengan
pembimbing
3. Saya tidak akan melakukan penjiplakan (plagiat) dalam penyusunan skripsi
saya
4. Apabila melanggar perjanjian pada butir 1, 2, dan 3 maka saya bersedia
menerima sanksi sesuai aturan yang berlaku.
Demikian surat perjanjian ini saya buat dengan penuh kesadaran.
Makassar, 2020
Yang Membuat Pernyataan
SUMIATI
vi
MOTTO
MEMULAI DENGAN PENUH KEYAKINAN
MENJALANKAN DENGAN PENUH KEIKHLASAN
MENYELESAIKAN DENGAN PENUHAN KEBAHAGIAN
( SUMIATI )
vii
ABSTRACT
SUMIATI. 10535648315. 2019.The Correlation Between Language Learning
Strategies and Students Thinking Styles at SMA Negari 5 Selayar (Descriptive
Quantitative Research). Guided by Ummi Khaerati Syam and Awalia Azis.
A Thesis of English Department, the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
This study aims to determine the correlation between language learning
strategies and students thinking styles in English learning on students of class XII
SMA Negeri 5 Selayar. Sampling technique used in the study was descriptive
research. The population in this research is XII IPS1, XII IPS2 and XII IPA in
SMA Negeri 5 Selayar 2018/2019.
The respondent of this study were 25 students. researcher used two
questionnaire, the first questionnaire about language learning strategies and the
second questionnaire about students thinking styles. Based on the study showed
the average value for questionnaire of language learning strategies was 1.585 and
the average value of the students thinking styles was 2.271.
Based on the result of data processing and analysis, the researcher
concluded that there was a significant (variable X) expressed good with an
average value of 63.4% and (variable Y) expressed quit with an average value of
90,84% while the results of the product moment correlation analysis rcount =14,3
while rtable = 0,413. So HA was accepted and HO was rejected from the learning
outcome of students of class XII in SMA Negeri 5 Selayar. Thus there was a
positive and there was significant correlation between language learning and
students thinkung styles.
Key Word : Correlation, Language Learning Strategies, Students Thinking
Styles
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
By reciting bismillahirrahmanirrahim, praise the presence of Allah SWT,
for the abundance of His grance, so that the author can complite the thesis with
the title: The Correlation Between Language Learning Strategies and Students
Thinking Styles of SMAN 5 Selayar. This was to fulfill one of the requirements
for completing studies as well as in order to obtain a bacheleor of education egree
in the English Education departement faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Awards and thank you for my beloved father Hamarung and my beloved
mother Ice, who have given her endless love, material, and moral help patiently
until the end of her study. The researcher also give her appreciantion for beloved
brother Jafar, Saldianto, Bambang, for belovod sister Jumiati, Asiah and her
family who always make her smile, give support, and pray for her succes. May
Allah SWT always give the grace of health, gift and the bestness of the good
budbs that have been given to the author.
The researcher great thanks are due to Ummi Khaerati Syam, S.Pd.,M.Pd
her first consultant and Awalia Azis, S.Pd.,M.Pd her second consultant who have
helped writing this thesis
Special thanks are give to Muhammadiyah University of Makassar because
of giving an opportunity to the reseacher in getting undergraduate education. And
great thanks also for:
ix
1. Prof Dr. H. Abd Rahman Rahim, SE.,MM. The Rector of the
Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
2. Erwin Akib, S.Pd., P.Hd., The Dean of Training and Education Faculty
3. Ummy Khaerati Syam, S.Pd.,M.Pd. The Head English Education
Department FKIP Muhammadiyah University of Makassar
4. All lectures of the FKIP Muhammadiyah University Of Makassar
especially of the English Department for their guidance during her
study.
5. All her friends in the Department of English Education, especially for G
class 2015 for their support and friendship. She also would like to thank
Andi Tendri wulandari, Elvyra Trisna Fadillah, Yuli, Ema for wonder
friendship. And give thanks to Posko Muanjah Sidrap Especially Ibu Ice
squad.
6. All my family in Pondok Herman, especially Ibu and Bapak kos,
andika,misna, risda, bungsu, sutra.
Finally, by recing Alhamdulillahi Rabbil’ Alamiin, the researcher has
been success to finish her work or research according to the target of time
and also target of the research, nothing left or forgetten to do.
Researcher,
Sumiati
ix
TABLE OF CONTENT
TITTLE OF PAGE
APPROVAL SHEET ......................................................................................... i
COUNSELLING SHEET ................................................................................. ii
PERSETUJUAN JUDUL ................................................................................ iv
PENGAJUAN JUDUL ...................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................. vii
TABEL OF CONTENT ................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLE ............................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURE .......................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
A. Background .......................................................................................... 1
B. Problem Statement ............................................................................... 4
C. Object of The Research ......................................................................... 4
D. Significance of The Research ............................................................... 4
E. Scope of The The Research .................................................................. 5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................ 6
A. Previous Related Research Findings ..................................................... 6
B. Theoretical Framework ......................................................................... 7
1. Language Learning Srategies ........................................................... 7
2. Students Thinking Styles ............................................................... 13
C. Hypothesis of the Research ................................................................. 19
x
1. Null Hypothesis .............................................................................. 19
2. Alternative Hypothesis .................................................................. 20
D. Conceptual Frame Work ..................................................................... 20
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ...................................................... 22
A. Research Design................................................................................. 22
B. Population And Simple ...................................................................... 22
C. Research Variable .............................................................................. 22
D. Research Instrument........................................................................... 23
E. Prosedure Of Collective Date ............................................................ 23
F. Technique Of Data Analysis .............................................................. 24
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .......................................... 26
A. ResearchFindings .................................................................................. 26
1. Language Learning Strategies ......................................................... 26
2. Students’ Thinking Style ................................................................. 27
3. Hypothesis Testing .......................................................................... 31
B. Discussion ............................................................................................. 32
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION .................................. 35
A. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 35
B. Suggestion ............................................................................................. 35
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX
QUESTONNAIRE
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
English was the world prime language which was used in diplomacy,
education, business, economy, politic, social and culture. Many information used
English right now. English in Indonesia was a foreign language that almost every
people learn about that to grow up like the other country. Many schools in
Indonesia make English as their compulsion lesson in junior and senior high
school. Moreover, many Islamic boarding schools like Pondok Modern Gontor
Darussalam, SMAN 5 Selayar they apply English Language as their daily and all
of the students have to practise that. From that habit, students that actually do not
like English they try to understand that and they apply English language as their
daily language.
English was an International language which was used by people almost in
the whole world. Richards and Rodgers (2001: 3) state that today English was the
most Widely studied foreign language in the world. However, in Indonesia,
English was just known as the first foreign language which was very limited use
including the place, time, and environment. The were many ways and factors to
improve English language skill and depends in the students’. Every students have
their own way to think, to accept what they get, to process what they receive. The
environment of students also make impact for students to get an information.
The successful learning process was not only by the good learning
strategies and methods also depends on students’ thinking styles. The correct
2
students thinking styles make an impact for learning process. There were good
and bad factors that influence Students learning in the class. Nyikos and Oxford
(1993: 11) state that even with the best teachers and methods, students ware the
only ones who can actually do the learning. From the problems above the
researcher knows that the factors that influence the learning process depends on
how was the students thinking styles. Dweck (2006) say that there were 2 kinds of
approach in students thinking styles; they were fixed mindset and growth mindset.
In a fixed mindset, students always feels anxious and nervous to setbacks or
criticisms. Students with growth mindset feels eager to learn to boost her
performance and enjoy exploring, experimenting and stretching themself.
Students have a minds which is branched, and it call as their brain was start to
grow up but still not maximal. Usually students learn more to get new
information, science and from this process students can develop their brain again.
Students who can focus on the learning process usually they can get much
information from the learner.
According to Williams (2011) technology, for example, the use of mobile
phone can distract the students learns. This opinion was also support by Fried
(2006) who report that computer as one form of technologies, give negative effect
in the process of learning.
Even English language was the world wide prime language in this world
do not mean that there were no people who do not like English. Not all of the
students of English Education Department in SMAN 5 Selayar was truely like
English. Some students take English Education Department just like to fill empty
3
time, to do what their parents want or it can be a form from a release when she to
in another university but she get ignored. Students with that type usually when the
class was begin they are busy with what they want to do or come late to the class.
Often they are playing her smartphone in the class rather than listening to her
lecturer. In this problem it can be solved when the student interest in the strategy
of learning and from that strategy the students can change her mindset.
Furthermore, Drozdenko, Tesch, Coelho (2011) state that there are two factors
that can disturb students‟ focus in the class, that was internal and external factors.
Internal factor was coming from her own self like talking to others, sending a
message, playing a handphone, listening to music in her MP3. External factor was
a kind of disturb that are made from the other, it. Can be from her friend, teacher
was that hard to understand or it can be from outside of the class.
The way that students act can explain how they think. Every student have
differences about what they need in language learning process and their own way
to think. From this problem the researchers see they have their own strategy to
accept an information. There were some strategies in language learning strategy
that was Cognitive Learning Strategies, Metacognitive Learning Strategies,
Communication Strategies and Social Strategies. Naiman (1978:1) state that all
kind of language learning can grow well if we have enough knowledge about
learners and process of learning and teaching. Concerning with those problems,
lecturer as the main component of education was challenged to be as creative as
possible to provide opportunities for students to expose and to reinforce student
4
skills. To encourage students to practice their language, the researcher tries to help
teacher to solve the problems of students.
In this research the researcher was aim to find out the significant
relationship between language learning strategies and students thinking styles by
sharing questionnaire to the students of SMAN 5 Selayar as participants of this
research especially for language education department. For this reason, the
researcher predicts that sharing questionnaire might be useful to find out the
result. Based on the arguments that had been discussed, the researcher thinks that
it was necessary to observe and focus on language learning strategies and students
thinking styles. That was why the researcher chooses the title “The Correlation
between Language Learning Strategies and Students’ Thinking Styles”
B. Problem Statement
Based on background above, research problem of the study is formulates
in question forms: “is there any Correlation between Language Learning
Strategies and Students’ Thinking Styles at Twelve Grade SMAN 5 Selayar?
C. Objectives of the Research
Based on the problem statement above, the researcher intend to find out
whether or not the significant correlation between language learning strategies and
students’ thinking styles, at twelve grade SMAN 5 Selayar.
D. Significant of the Research
Research was something that important to do in science development,
especially for the English language learning. Hopefully this result of the research
give some benefits for the readers. It can be use in order to develop their
5
information. The researcher deliver the significant of the research as theoretically
and practically:
1. Theoretically, the findings of the research are expect to support one of the
theories on language learning and thinking styles,
2. Practically, the result of this research are expect to be beneficial:
a. As contribution to the further education research development.
b. As information and reference for English teacher in development
students’ thinking styles
E. Scope of the Research
This research limited the study about correlation between language
learning strategies especially indirect strategies (metacognitive, affective, social
used by students and their thinking styles that focus in internal and external
thinking styles.
6
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A. Previous Related Research Findings
In this research the researchers takes several reviews of related literature
from previous research as comparison. The first research was written by
Mahmood (2013), in his research he used questionnaire and a self report test to
analyze the correlation. In his research the objectives of his study is to find out
positive relationship between language learning strategies employed by Senior
High School (EFL) students and their thinking styles, to find out positive
relationship between language learning strategies employed by Senior High
School (EFL) students and their gender and to find out a positive relationship
between thinking styles employed by Senior High School (EFL) students and their
gender. The results obtained from the present study are more revealing that there
was a significant difference between males and females in terms of strategy
choice. It was found that the differences between the strategy use of male and
female are meaningful for memory, metacognitive, compensation, cognitive. In
other words, males use more memory, cognitive, compensation and metacognitive
strategies compare with females, but there was no significant diference between
males and females with regard to the affective and social startegy use.
according Mahmood, Hashemnezhad and Javidi (2013) and this research
was the participants from several students of Senior High Schoolespecially in
language department.
7
Mahmood, Hashemnezhad and Javidi (2013) research the objectives of the
study was to find out positive relationship between language learning strategies
employed by Senior High School (EFL) students and their thinking styles, to find
out positive relationship between language learning strategies employed by Senior
High School (EFL) students and their gender and to find out a positive
relationship between thinking styles employed by Senior High School(EFL)
students and their gender. And in this research was to know what was the
relationship between language learning strategies and students thinking styles, to
know the effect of learning strategy towards students thinking styles and the
significant correlation between language learning strategy and students thinking
styles.
The second research was written by Ahmadi, Gorjian and Pazkhah (2014).
In his research he focused on the extent of their association with reading
comprehension amongSenior High School students. The aim of his research was
to find out the significance relationship between thinking styles and use of
language learning strategies. That means students‟ thinking styles maypredict
their preference of language learning strategies. There was also a positive and
meaningful correlation between legislative and judicial thinking styles and the
total scres of language learning strategies and reading comprehension perfomance.
B. Language Learning Strategies and students thinking styles
The theoretical framework involve the discussion of Language learning
strategy and students thinking styles.
1. Language Learning Strategies
8
Learner should learn their own strategies to learn English well. Research on
language learning strategies has increased significantly since the (Alfian, 2016)
Language learning strategies have received a considerable amount of significance
since early 1970s for the crucial role they are playing in language learning. Many
researcher defined language learning strategies differently.
1970 (Alhasony, 2017). In fact, language learners develop their own ways
and use various activities to learn consciuosly and unconsciously (Alfian, 2016)
Language learning strategies have received a considerable amount of significance
since early 1970s for the crucial role they are playing in language learning. Many
researcher defined language learning strategies differently.
Hardan (2013: 1725) defines language learning strategies as steps,
behaviours and techniques used by learners to enhance and facilitate the language
acquisition. The concept of language learning strategies is received a considerable
amount of significance since early 1970 century for the crucial role they are
playing in the processes of language learning and acquisition this is supported
with what Alhasony (2017 : 256).
Ghani (2003: 12) had a extensive study on the area of language learning
strategies. She defined these stratgies as: specific actions, behaviours, step, or
technieques that students (often intertionally) use to imporeve their progress in
developing second language skill. According to her, these strategies can facilitate
the internalization, strorage, retrieval, or use of the new language.
An early definition given by Rigeney (1978: 20) who defines language
learning strategies as the often-conscious steps or behaviors used by language
learners to enhance the acquisition, storage, retention, and use to new information.
Oxford, Lavine and Crookal (1989) cited in Hardan (2013: 1714) have the same
9
idea as Rigeney (1978: 20) about language learning strategies. They stated that
language learning strategies are use to enhance and to facilitate language
acquisition. They referred to language learning strategies as "actions, behaviors,
steps, or techniques such us seeking out the target language conversation partners,
or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language task used by
learners to enhance learning. As stated earlier about language learning strategies,
Rubin (1994: 25) suggested that language learning strategies are routines, plans
and operations used by the learnerto facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval
and use of information. According to them the objective in using language
learning strategies is to memorize language information, recall that information
and use it in a different situation. In other words, language learning strategies
refer to what students do to learn and to regulate their learning.
According to Oxford (1990: 56) learners are being encouraged to learn and
use a board range of language learning strategies that can be tapped throughout
the learning process. This approach is based on the belief that learning will be
facilitated by making this students aware of range of strategies from which they
can choose during language learning and use. Every learner have their strategies
in language learning. Some students learn words by breaking them down into their
components and some of them consciously use guessing when they read (Oxford,
1990: 43).
Language learning strategies has been categorized into several clarification
by the experts. One of the most comprehensive and complete classifications was
the classification by Oxford (1990: 10). She mentioned that strategies were
prominent for language learning because they are tools for active, self-directed
involvement, which was essential for developing communicative competence.
10
Oxford (1990: 11) categorized language learning strategies into direct and indirect
strategies. The strategies used directly in dealing with a new language are called
direct strategies. Oxfords direct strategies consist of three parts, memory
strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. Oxfords indirect
strategies include metacognitive strategies, affective (emotional, motivation-
related) strategies, and social strategies.
The categories of language learning strategies and the language learning
strategies is an essential role in language learning process (Alfian:2016). It
represents one of the most critical components in language learning. Language
learning strategies very important for language learning because they are tools for
active, self directed movement, which was essential for developing
communicative competence (Oxford, 1990 : 14). Furthermore, Gursoy (2010)
cited in Alfian (2016) who has stated that language learning strategies can also
create a productive, student-centred learning environment in which students are
encouraged to be autonomous or independent learners – learners who can take
control of their learning.
The researcher summarize the direct and indirect strategies by Oxford
(1990: 18) as follows:
a. Direct strategies
According to Oxford (1990: 17) the direct strategies are beneficial to the
students because they help store and recover information. These strategies help
learners to produce language even when there was gap in knowledge. They also
help to understand and use the new language.
1. Memory strategies
11
Oxford (1990: 17) states memory strategies are based on simple principles
like laying things out in order, making association, and reviewing. These
principles are employed when a learner faces challenge of vocabulary learning.
The words and phrases can be associated with visual images that can be stored
and retrieved for communication. Many learners make use of visual images, but
some find it easy to connect words and phrases with sound, motion or touch.
2. Cognitive strategies
Oxford (1990: 17) states cognitive strategies was the most popular strategies
with language learners. The target language was manipulated or transformed by
repeating, analyzing or summarizing. The four sets in this group are: Practicing,
Receiving and Sending Messages, Analyzing and Reasoning, and Creating
Structure for Input and Output.
3. Compensation Strategies
Oxford (1990: 17) states learners use compensation strategies for
comprehension of the target language when they have insufficient knowledge of
the target language. These strategies make up for the deficiency in grammar
andvocabulary. When learners do not know new words and expressions, they
guess the meaning. A learner brings own life experience to interpret data by
guessing.
b. Indirect strategies
Oxford (1990: 17) states indirect language learning strategies work together
with the direct strategies. They help learner regulate the learning process. These
12
strategies support and manage language learning without direct engagement and
therefore called indirect strategies (Oxford, 1990).
1. Metacognitive Strategies
Oxford (1990: 17) states metacognitive strategies was aspects associated with
planning, monitoring, and evaluating the language learning process (Fewell, 2010:
66). Metacognitive strategies go beyond the cognitive mechanism and gave learners
to coordinate their learning. This helps them to plan language learning in an efficient
way. When new vocabulary, rules, and writing system confuse the learner, these
strategies become vital for successful language learning. Song (2004) cited in Alfian
(2016: 151) found that metacognitive strategies were most frequently used by the
students when comparing to cognitive strategies.
2. Affective Strategies
Oxford (1990:17) states affective strategies are concerned with the learners
emotional requirements such as confidence and perseverance needed for learners
to involve themselves actively in language learning, for example, lowering
anxiety levels by laughing at their own mistakes (Vlckova, 2013: 154).The
affective factors like emotion, attitude, motivation, and values influence learning
in an important way. Three sets of strategies were included in this group:
Lowering Your Anxiety, Encouraging Yourself, and Taking Your Emotional
Temperature. Good language learners control their attitudes and emotions about
learning and understand that negative feelings retard learning. Teachers can help
generate positive feeling in class by giving students more responsibility,
increasing the amount of natural communication, and teaching affective strategies.
3. Social Strategies
13
Oxford (1990: 17) states language was a form of social behavior: it was
communication, and communication occurs between and among people (Oxford:
1990: 144) social strategies were very important in learning a language because
language was used in communication and communication occurs between people.
Three sets of strategies were included in this group: Asking Questions,
Cooperating with others, and empathy with others. Among the three, asking
questions was the most helpful and comes closest to understanding the meaning. It
also helps in conversation by generating response from the partner and shows
interst and involvement. Cooperation with other eliminates competition and in its
place brings group spirit. Studies show that cooperative learning results in higher
self-esteem, increased confidence, and rapil achievement.
2. Students Thinking Styles
Thinking was an important part of the learning process. According to
Nasrah (2012: 341) by understanding the diversity of thinking styles our students
possess, we are able to insure that students understand what we are teaching even
if they have very different styles from our own.
Zhang (2011: 157) states that thinking styles refer to students‟ preferred
ways of using the abilities that they have. Students‟ thinking styles could predict
students‟ course satisfaction and their learning involvement. Differ with Batoret
(2007) states thinking styles were, in principle, value-free, for the same thinking
style can serve on person beautifully in one situation, but may fail the same
person miserably in another situation. Understanding thinking styles can help
14
student to understand well why some activities fit them and others don't, and even
why some students‟ fit them and others don't.
Sternberg (1997) in mental self-governing theory defines 13 styles of
thinking classified in 5 dimensions that was:
a. Function (including the legislative, executive, and judicial styles).
1. Legislative Styles
According to Sternberg (1997:20) legislative people like to come up with
their own ways of doing things, and prefer to decide for themselves what they
have done and how they have done it. Legislative people like to create their
own rules and prefer problems that were not pre-structured and prefabricated.
Example Ben was a legislative stylist. Some of the preferred kinds of
activities of a legislative stylist are writing creative papers, designing
innovative projects, creating new business or educational systems, and
inventing new things. Some of the kinds of occupations that legislative prefer
are creative writer, scientist, artist, sculptor, investment banker, policy maker,
and architect.
2. Executive Styles
According to Sternberg (1997:21) executive people like to follow rules
and prefer problems that are pre-structured or prefabricated. They like to fill
in the gaps within existing structures rather than to create the structures
themselves. Some of the kinds of activities they are likely are solving given
mathematical problems, applying rules to problems, giving talks or lessons
based on other people's ideas, and enforcing rules. Some occupations that can
15
be a good fit to executivethinkers are certain types of lawyer, police officer
on patrol, buider of the other people’s deigns, soldier, and administrative
assistent.
3. Judical styles
According to Sternberg (1997: 21) judicial people like to evaluate rules
and procedures, and prefer problems in which one analyzes and evaluates
existing things and ideas. The judicial stylist likes activities such as writing
critiques, giving opinions, judging people about their work, and evaluating
programs. Some of their preferred kinds of occupations were judge, critic,
program evaluator, consultant, admissions officer, grant and contract monitor,
and systems analyst.
b. Forms (including the hierarchical, oligarchic, monarchic, and anarchic styles).
1. Hierarchical Styles
According to Sternberg (1997: 22) the hierarchic person has a hierarchy
of goals and recognizes the need to set priorities, as all goals cannot always
be fulfilled, or at least fulfilled equally well. This person tends to be more
accepting of complexity and recognizes the need to view problems from a
number of angle to set priorities correctly.
2. Oligarchic Styles
According to Sternberg (1997: 23) the oligarchic person was like the
hierarchic person in having a desire to do more than one thing in time. But
unlike hierarchic people, oligarchic people tend to be motivated by several,
often competing goals. Often, these individuals feel pressured in the face, the
16
competing demands on their time and other resources. They are not always
sure what to do first, or how much time to allot to each of the tasks they need
to complete. They can become as effective or even more effective than people
with other styles.
3. Monarchic Styles
According to Sternberg (1997: 23) a monarchic person is someone who is
single-minded and driven. The individual tends not to let anything get in the
way of his or her solving a problem. Monarchic people can be counted on to
get a thing done, given that they have set their mind to it.
4. Anarchic Styles
According to Sternberg (1997: 23) the anarchic person seems to be
motivated by a potpourri of needs and goals that can be difficult for him or
her, as well as for others, to sort out. Anarchic people take what seems like a
random approach to problems; they tend to reject systems, and especially
rigid ones,and to fight back at whatever system they see as confining them.
c. Levels (including the global and local styles).
1. Global Styles
According to Sternberg (1997: 24) global individuals prefer to deal with
relatively large and abstract issues. They ignore or do not like details, and
prefer to see the forest rather than the trees. Like to deal with big picture,
generalities, and abstractions.
2. Local Styles
17
According to Sternberg (1997: 24) local individuals like concrete
problems requiring working with details. They tend to be oriented toward the
pragmatics of a situation, and were down-to-earth. The danger was that they
may lose the forest for the trees. However, some of the worst system failures,
such as in aviation and rocketry, have occurred when people have ignored
what seemed at the time to be small details. Thus, almost any team requires at
least some local individuals.
d. Scopes (including the internal and external styles)
1. Internal Styles
According to Sternberg (1997: 25) internal individuals are concerned
with internal affairs - that was to say, these individuals turn inward. They
tend to be introverted, task oriented, aloof, and sometimes socially less aware.
They like to work alone. Essentially, their prefence was to apply their
intelligence to things or ideas in isolation from other people.
2. External Styles
According to Sternberg (1997: 25) external individuals tend to be
extroverted, outgoing, and peopleoriented. Often, they are socially sensitive
and aware of what is going on with others. They like working with other
people wherever possible. Many of the questions that arise in education as to
"what was better?" stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the
interaction of styles with learning experience.
e. Leanings (including the liberal and conservative styles)
1. Liberal Styles
18
According to Sternberg (1997: 26) the liberal individual likes to go
beyond existing rules and procedures, to maximize change, and to seek
situations that are somewhat ambiguous. The individual is not necessarily
"politically" liberal. A political conservative could have a liberal style in
trying to implement, say, a Republican agenda in a new and all-encompassing
way. Thrillseekers tend to have a liberal style, as do people who, in general,
quickly become bored.
2. Conservative Styles
According to Sternberg (1997: 26) the conservative individual likes to
adhere to existing rules and procedures, minimize change, avoid ambiguos
situations where possible, and stick with familiar situations in work and
professional life. This individual will be happiest in structure and relatively
predictable environment. When such structure does not exist, the individual
may seek to create it.
Moreover, students use different thinking styles on the basis of the
stylistic demands of a given situation. Biggs & Telfer (1987) have
demonstrated that knowledge about students‟ thinking styles is helpful for
educators and curriculum designers interested in designing effective and
workable teaching strategies that satisfy student needs. This was essential to
the aim of the teaching-learning process, which was for students to receive
meaningful knowledge that can be used in new learning situations and
retained longer in the mind.
19
Thinking styles can be affected by a variety like culture, gender, age,
parental styles, schools, different jobs and social and economic status.
Sternberg (1997: 16) believed that two aspects of culture are relevant here:
first is some societies are likely to be more rewarding of certain styles than
others. And the second was the respective natures of individualistic and
collectivistic cultures may lead to different thinking styles.The way of
students thinking styles between man and woman was different. According to
Sternberg (1997: 56) men used higher frequency of styles than women and
rated them self as more global, internal and less judicial. Parents also
influenced students thinking styles. Sternberg (1997: 65) stated that the way
the parents react to their children questions and what they encourage and
reward at home reflect in their thinking styles. Sternberg (1997: 12) stated
that thinking styles are related with creativity processes, problem solving and
decision making. Sternberg (1997: 17) it was expected that the best predictors
of students‟ thinking style would be those that best fit or were most
compatible with the way the class was conducted and organized; in other
words, students satisfaction with the course would depend upon the
consistency of the students‟ thinking styles.
C. Hypothesis of the Research
Prediction over the truth regarding to the correlation between two or more
variables is called as hypothesis (Arikunto: 2016: 45). In analyzing the data, the
researcher used correlational quantitative research. The hypothesis going to be
statement whether or not there were correlation among the two variables.
20
According to Arikunto (2016: 47) there are two kinds of hypothesis as
follows:
1. Null hypothesis (Ho)
Statement which shows a negative correlation (no correlation) among
variables is called Null hypothesis.
2. Alternative hypothesis (Ha)
Statement which shows a positive correlation (there are correlation) among
variables was called Alternative hypothesis.
Therefore, the writer aims to propose two hypotheses as follows:
1. Ho: there was no significant correlation between language learning
strategies and students thinking styles.
2. Ha: there was significant correlation between language learning strategies
and students thinking styles.
D. Conceptual Frame Work
Based on the some theories, present the researcher try to give theoretical:
Learning English
Language Learning
Strategies
Students’ Thinking
Styles
Indirect strategies
a. Metacognitive Strategies
b. Affective Stratgeis
c. Social Strategies
Thinking styles
a. Internal Styles
b. External styles
21
Figure 2.1 conseptual framework
Based on the conceptual framework above shown in learning english. The
learning english was a term referring to processes and actions that were
conciously develop by leaners to help them to learn or use a language more
effectively. In learning english there are two parts. The first part was language
learning strategies and the second part was students’ thinking styles. Language
learning strategies were included metacognitive strategies, affective strategies,
and social strategies. And students’ thinking styles include intrnal styles and
external styles.
22
CHAPTERIII
RESEARCH METHOD
A. Research Design
This researchwas descriptivequantitative which was used about the
correlation between two variable those were language learning strategies and
students thinking styles in order to find out the correlation of both.
B. Population and Simple
Students in this research was senior high school. The subject of this research
was twelve grade of SMAN 5 Selayar in 2019/2020
1. Population
The population of this research was XII grade in students of SMA Negeri 5
Selayar in Academic year 2019/2020.Which consisted of 3 classes they were XII
IPS1, XII IPS2, and XII IPA. The number of population were 50 students
2. Sample
Sample was part of population. The data obtained from population by using
ramdom sampling technique in three classes theree class. It was conducted at the
students of the twelve garde students of SMA Negeri 5 Selayar consits of 25
students.
C. Research Variable
There were two variables that used in conducting research, namely the
independent variable and the dependent variable. The independent variable in this
study was the used of the language learning strategies. Meanwhile, the dependent
variable in this study was to improve students’ thinking styles.
23
D. Research Instrument
The instrument which was used by the researcher was questionnaire. It
divided into two parts, the first one was the questionnaire of Language Learning
Strategy which was consisted of 3 main parts those were metacoqnitive, affective
and social which each part consisted of 5 items so the total items were 15 items.
The second one was the questionnaire of Thinking Styles which was divided into
2 main parts those are internal and external which each part consists of 10 items
so the total items are 20 items.
E. Procedure of Data Collection
In collected data, the researcher used some procedures as follows:
1. First, the researcher came to the class and explained the purpose of the
research.
2. The second, researcher explained about the questionnaire and how to answer
it.
3. Next, the questionnaires were distributed to the students.
4. The students gave 35-45 minutes.
5. After answering the questionnaire, the researcher collected it from the students
and says thanks to the students for their time to answer the questionnaire.
24
F. Technique of Data Analysis
The data obtained from the questionnaire through the following formula:
1. Formula of Mean Score
To calculate the mean score, the following formula was applied:
-X = ΣX
N
Where : X = mean score
: ΣX = the sum of all score
: N = the number of students
(Gay, 1981)
2. Formula calculate of the correlation
After getting data from the students in the questionnaire, the researcher
needed to analyze the data and correlated between questionnaire resulted. The
researcher was description analysis to describe the data statistically.
The technique on data on analysis used correlation technique from person
product moment, that is:
√
Where:
rxy : Coefficient of correlation between X variable and Y variable
ΣX : The sum of scores in X distribution
ΣY : The sum of scores in Y distribution
ΣX : The sum of multiplication of X and Y scores
X 2 : The sum of squared in X
Y 2 :The sum of squared in Y
N : The number of sample
(Sugiyono, 2010)
25
Table 3.1 Standard of Correlation product Moment
No. The Score of “r” Product Moment (rxy) Interpretation
1 0.000 - 0.199 Very low
2 0.20 – 0.399 Low
3 0.40 – 0.599 Medium
4 0.60 – 0.799 High
5 0.80 – 1.000 Very High
(sugiyono, 2011)
To find out whether the correlation between the two variable of this research was
significant or not, the r analysis was compared with the r table as follow.
If rxy> r table is positive correlation
rxy< r table negative correlation
rxy = r table is zero correlation
26
BAB IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
In this research was contained data finding from the test result, the
researcher conducted the research using questionnaire in SMA Negeri 5 Selayar at
twelve grade for getting questionnaire score. The researcher analyzed data to
know the correlation between language learning strategies and students thinking
styles.
A. Research Findings
The findings of this research deals with the language learning strategies used
by the students score obtained from questionnaire, the students thinking styles
score obtained thourgh test and analysis correlation which were presented
below.
1. Language Learning Strategies
Language Learning Strategies score as variable X in this study. To get the
score, the researcher conducted the research through questionnaire. Based on the
analyzed data, the present research found that all three language learning
strategies had been used by the students at different rate. The table below
describes the result of the language learning strategies questionnaire.
Table 4.1 Score of Language Learning Strategies :
No. Learning Strategies Mean score
1. metacognitive 2.232
27
2. Affective 2.116
3. Social 1.912
2. The Students Thiking Styles Score:
The students’ thinking styles score as Y variable in this study, to get the
score, the researcher conducted the research through questionnaire. . Based on the
analyzed data, the present research found that all three thinking styles had been
used by the students at different rate. The table below describes the result of the
students’ thinking styles questionnaire.
Table 4.2 Score of Thiking Styles
No. Thinking styles Mean score
1. Internal 4.612
2. External 4.536
Based on the result of the data analysis above, it can be concluded that, the
mean score of the total language learning strategies especially thiking styles was
2.232, where of the table above the average student gets the higest score of 60 to
the lowes, 20, so that the overall number was obtained, while thinking styles
was4.612from the total number of students, namely 25 people, where in this
indicator students have values ranging from 75 and above so that students rarely
have high score. It means hat have positive correlation between them.
Table 4.3 the result of students thinking styles was Learning Engish
28
Valid
Thinking Styles Result Frequency Percent
Extenal and Internal 4 16%
Thinking styles 21 84%
Total 25 100%
Based on the result of frequency and persent it can be seen that the
correlation between language learning strategies and students thinking styles, of
SMA negeri 5 Selayar there were only 4 students (16%) from 25 sample of
students who are unthinking styles by language learning strategies conducted in
class while on the other word there are 21 students (84%) are highly thinking
styles in language learning stratgeis in the class that was reviewed from the result
of data collection and the result of the data analysis. It means that language
learning strategies and students thinking styles in though the significant was high
scores. It means that have positive correlation between them.
Chart 4.1 Frequency of language learning strategies and students thinking
styles score
Frequency
40
30
20
10
0
Thinking styles Internal external
Based on the chart of frequency above, can be seen the correlation between
language learning stratagies and students’ thinking styles, of SMAN 5 Selayar
there were 4 only students (16%) from 25 sample of students who were
29
unthinking styles by language learning strategies conducted in class while on the
other word there are 21 students (84%) were thinking styles in language learning
strategies in the class that was reviewed from the resul of data collection and the
result of data analysis. It means that language learning strategies have correlation
between language learning strategies and studants’ thinking styles though the
significant was higt score it means that have positive correlation between them.
Chart 4.2 Frequency of language learning strategies and students thinking
styles score
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
Thinking styles Internal external
Based on the chart of the percetage above, can be seen the correlation
between language learning stratgeies especially metacognitive strategis and
thinking styles of students especially intrinsic thinking styles in English learning,
of SMAN 5 Selayar there were 4 students (16%) from 25 sample of students who
were unthinking styles by language learning strategies conducted in class while
on the other word there were 21 students (84%) are thinking styles in language
learning strategies in the class that was reviewed from the result of data collection
30
and the result of data analysis. It means that language learning strategies have
correlation between language learning stratgies and students thinking styles in
though the significant was high scores it means that have positif correlation
between them.
3. Hypothesis Test
The result of statistical analysis at the level significant or alpha level (a)
5% showed that rxy was higher than rtable analysis 0,413 based on the calculation,
the coefficient correlation between language learning strategie to the students
achievement was 14,3. The significant value was 14,3 > 0,413. It meant that
alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted, while the null hypothesis (Ho) was
rejected.
The researcher concluded that there was significant correlation between
language learning strategies and students thinking styles. It meant that the students
have to pay attention in their learning strategies.
B. Discussion
The researcher stated in the previous chapter the aim of study was to
investigated whether there is significant correlation between Language Learning
Strategies and Students Thinking styles had been proved at English grade of
SMAN 5 Selayar.
This reserach was same with the some previous researchs. The first by
Ahmadi, Gorjoan, Pazhakh (2014) that there was positive correlation between
language learning stratgeis and students thinking styles (r = 0.793). this research
was also supported byMahmood, K. B. (2013) which found out that there was
31
significant relationship between language learning stratgies and students thinking
styles (r =0.176).
The research by Hossein and Shahrooz (2012) that there was correlation
between thinking styles and Language Learning Strategis (N= 100). There was
significant evidence to accepted the null hypothesis HO and conclude that there
was a positive associantion between thinking styles (M=5,26, SD=0.598) and
Language Learning Strategies (M=3.33, SD=0,755), (r=0.793 p
<0.01). this
research was also supported by Ajleaa Nurul (2015). She said there was a
correlation between the Language Learning Strategies and thinking styles. It was
found to be the highest (r=0,49, p<0.01).
This result of the data was supported by Hismanoglu (2000) who said that
the Language Learning Strategies has a significant correlation with students
thinking styles was classified as high level where the mean score was (r=76,04, p<
0,01). The studies of Park (2010) indicated that were was a positive correlation
between Language Learning Strategies and students thinking styles. Another
previous research, Juwita (2015) stated that Language Learning Strategies gave a
significant correlation on students thinking styles with (r= 0,952) Language
Learning Strategies were used by the students to help them improve the
effectiveness of students thinking styles.
On the other hand, calculation in this research showed the correlation
between languagae learning strategies and students’ thingking styles was hinger
than rcound(14,3 > 0,413). Based on the table interpretation, the correlation
coofficient rcound=14,3 was considered as high correlation bacause it included in
32
the fourth category (14,3- 0413). It means there was positive correlation between
two variable. In addition, the significant values was p=0,01 < 0,05 wich means
that the correlation was significant. And the coefficient determination was R
Square = 63,4 which means that the effect of Language Learning Strategies
toward students thinking styles was 63,4%.
Based on several statements above, it can be concluded that language
learning strategies and students thinking styles were very influential and related to
one another as in the result of data obtained after conducting research in one
school. Where the result show that thinking styles was very important for a
student in a learning strategies in the classroom, such as those presented above or
the result of data that has been obtained. Where the result show that the
correlation between language learning strategies and students thinking styles was
very high in the school.
33
34
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the finding of the data analysis, the researcher conclusion and
suggesion of this research, there was positif significant correlation between
language learning strategies and students thinking styles in English learning.
Arranging and planning from the result above the researcher got that rxy > r table;
14,3 > 0.413 that means there was positive correlation between language learning
strategies expecially metacognitive, affective, social strategies and students
thinking styles expecially internal and external styles in English learning at
Twelve Grade of SMAN 5 Selayar.
B. Suggestion
In this chapter, in respect to the correlation between language learning
strategies and students thnking styles. the researcher would like to porpose some
suggestion that hoprfully would usefull for to the English Learning at Twelve
Grade of SMAN 5 Selayar.
1. For English teacher at Twelve Grade of SMAN 5 Selayar.
a. The teacher should pay attention more about language learning strategies
and thinking styles bacause had significant role.
b. The teacher should explain about language learning stratgies learning and
thinking styles give some exercise to improve their own learning in
English learning
2. For students at Twelve Grade of SMAN 5 Selayar.
35
a. That was where as we know that thinking styles has a strong influence on
learning stratgies as well, students themselves must try to encourage
themselve to be able, confidence and certain to succeed. The point was
always thinking positively and missing the passimistic nature.
b. Thinking styles was very important for students in learning stratgy in the
classroom. Become language learning strategies and thinking styles can
encourage students and change their personality better than before.
3. For future research
The researcher hopes that the next researcher will take more attetion when
they analysis and evaluate the instruments carefully furthermore, they have to
consider and choose carefully the suitable instrument of research.
36
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmadi, (2014) The Effect Of The Thinnking Style On EFL Language Learning
Strategy And Reading Comprehension. Iran: IJLLALW.
Ajleaa, (2015). The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and
Motivation in Learning English as A Second Language. Retrived from
https://www.reseschqate.net/publication/318489292. September 7th
2019.
Alfian. (2016). The aplication of language learning strategy of high school
students in indonesia. Ijee (indonesia journal of english education).
3(2), 140-157
.
Alhaysony, M. (2017). Leanguage learning strategy use by saudia efl students:
the effect of duration of english language study and gender. University
of hail, vol7 no 1.
Arikunto, S. (2002) prosedure penelitian, suatu pendekatan praktik. Jakarta: PT
intan putra.
Arikunto, S. (2016) prosedure penelitian suatu pendekatan praktik. Jakarta:
Rinekacipta.
Batoret, F, D. (2007) the influence of students’ and teachers’ thinking style on
students course satisfaction andon their learning process. Universitas
faume vol.27, no.2.
Borg, W. R & Gall, M. D. 1983 educational research: An introduction . New
york: Longman.
Chamot, A. U. (2014) issues of language learning strategy research and teaching.
Journal of foreign language teaching. Vol.1, PP. 14-26 natioanl
university of singapure.
Chamot, A.U> 2004 Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and
Teaching, Journal of Foreign language teaching. Vol.1,No. 1.PP.14-26
National University of Singapore,
Cohen, A. D (1998) Strategies in Learning and using a second Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cresswell, J.W (2012) Educational Research: Planing, conduction, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Garamond: Tex Tech
37
Dweck, C. S. (2006) The new psycology of success united stated: random house
Felder, M. R. (1995). Learning and Teaching Styles in foreign and second
Languange education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00767.x.
Gay, L. R. (2006) Educational Research, Competencies for analysis and
application. Ohio: Merril Publishing Company
Ghani, M. (2003) language learning strategies: a general overview. Iraq: elsevier
Ltd
Hardan, A. A. (2013) language learning strategies: a general overview. Iraq:
elsevier Ltd.
Hismanoglu, M (200) language learning stratgies in foreign Language Learning
and teaching. The internet TESL Journal, Vol, No.8, Agustust 2000
Hossein, (2012). The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and
Students Thinking styles of Iranian EFL lerners. Islamic Azad
University, Urmia Iran.
Ismail, N. M. (2012) Using Learning Styles, Thinking Styles and Students’
Attitude to Predict English language Achievement at The Collelage
Level. Taif University Voll 77, 333-374.
Juwita, et al (2015). Correlation Between Students Language Learning Strategies
and Their Thinking Styles at High School. Lampung; UNILA Journal
of English Teching.
Mahmood, K. B. (2013) the relationship between leanguage learning strategies
and thinking style of irani EFLlearners international journal of
research studies in language. 3-19.
Nyikos, M. (1990). Sex-related differences in adult language learning
socialization and memory factor. Modern language journal, 74 (3),
273-287
Oxford, R. (1989) the role of styles and stratgeis in second language
laerning.ERIC Digest, ERIC Clearing House and Linguistic
washington DC.
Oxford, R. L. (1990) languaage learning strategies: what every teacher should
know. Boston: heinle&henle.
38
Park., G. (2010). Investigation into Learning Strategies Used by Effectivi and Less
Effective EFL Learners in korea. South Korea: Soonchunhyang
University.
Razavi, A., & Shiri, A. (2005) coparative study on thinking styles of boys and
girls of high school and their academic achievement. Innovation in
education journal. 12(4), 35-45.
Richards and Rodgers (2001) Survey Research Method, 2nd
Edition. Belmont CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Saputra, E. W., and Subekti, N. B. (2017). A Study of The Language Learning
Strategies Used by English Education Departement Students.
Yogyakarta: Journal of English Language and Language Teaching
(Jellt).
Sternberg. R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Thinking styles inventory. Unpublished
Masterl thisis, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Sugiono. (2017) model penelitian quantitative, qualitative, R&B bandung:
alfabeta
Sugiono. (2017). Statistika untuk penelitian. bandung: alfabeta
Turki, J. (2012). Thinking styles “in light of sternberg’s Thoery” prevailing
among the students of Tafila Technical University and its relationship
with some variables. American Interlational Journal of Contenporary
research, 2(3), 140-152.
Wenden, A. and J.Rubin. (1987), Learner Strtegies and Language Learning. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign
language learning in Singapore. Languange Learning, 50,203-243.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00117
.
Zare, Pezhman. & Noordin (2011). The Relationship Between Language Learning
Strategy Use and Reading Comprehension Achievement Among
Iranian Undergraduate EFL Learners.
Zhang. (2011) Thinking Style and Conceptions of Creativity Among University
Students. Vol.31, no. 3 University of Brussels.
39
Appendix 1
SCORE OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATGEIES
Respondent Name Score
1 AAAA 25
2 BBBB 20
3 CCCC 25
4 DDDD 25
5 EEEE 23
6 FFFF 25
7 GGGG 25
8 HHHH 20
9 IIII 17
10 JJJJ 22
11 KKKK 19
12 LLLL 20
13 MMMM 23
14 NNNN 19
15 OOOO 25
16 PPPP 25
17 QQQQ 25
18 RRRR 22
19 SSSS 20
20 TTTT 24
21 UUUU 25
22 VVVV 20
23 WWWW 21
24 XXXX 18
25 YYYY 25
N = 25 Total = 558
METACOGNITIVE
40
Respondent Name Score
1 AAAA 23
2 BBBB 20
3 CCCC 20
4 DDDD 20
5 EEEE 22
6 FFFF 22
7 GGGG 25
8 HHHH 24
9 IIII 20
10 JJJJ 24
11 KKKK 21
12 LLLL 20
13 MMMM 19
14 NNNN 25
15 OOOO 21
16 PPPP 21
17 QQQQ 19
18 RRRR 19
19 SSSS 25
20 TTTT 17
21 UUUU 20
22 VVVV 19
23 WWWW 24
24 XXXX 19
25 YYYY 20
N = 25 Total = 529
AFFECTIVE
41
Respondent Name Score
1 AAAA 24
2 BBBB 21
3 CCCC 20
4 DDDD 21
5 EEEE 19
6 FFFF 22
7 GGGG 18
8 HHHH 22
9 IIII 21
10 JJJJ 18
11 KKKK 18
12 LLLL 18
13 MMMM 23
14 NNNN 19
15 OOOO 19
16 PPPP 15
17 QQQQ 25
18 RRRR 19
19 SSSS 21
20 TTTT 22
21 UUUU 21
22 VVVV 19
23 WWWW 22
24 XXXX 20
25 YYYY 20
N = 25 Total = 478
Sample Language Learning Strategies
25
Metacognitive
Means score
2.232
Affective
Means score
2.116
Social
Means score
1.912
SOCIAL
42
THE SCORE STUDENTS THINKING STYLES
Respondent Name Score
1 AAAA 50
2 BBBB 50
3 CCCC 35
4 DDDD 49
5 EEEE 48
6 FFFF 44
7 GGGG 50
8 HHHH 45
9 IIII 44
10 JJJJ 44
11 KKKK 28
12 LLLL 50
13 MMMM 47
14 NNNN 50
15 OOOO 48
16 PPPP 44
17 QQQQ 50
18 RRRR 50
19 SSSS 41
20 TTTT 50
21 UUUU 50
22 VVVV 46
23 WWWW 44
24 XXXX 48
25 YYYY 48
N = 25 Total = 1.153
INSTRINSIC
43
Respondent Name Score
1 AAAA 45
2 BBBB 39
3 CCCC 43
4 DDDD 50
5 EEEE 43
6 FFFF 48
7 GGGG 47
8 HHHH 50
9 IIII 48
10 JJJJ 48
11 KKKK 45
12 LLLL 45
13 MMMM 50
14 NNNN 40
15 OOOO 50
16 PPPP 44
17 QQQQ 48
18 RRRR 43
19 SSSS 43
20 TTTT 39
21 UUUU 45
22 VVVV 45
23 WWWW 44
24 XXXX 43
25 YYYY 49
N = 25 Total = 1.134
Sample Students Thinking Styles
25
Instrinsic
Means score
4.612
Extrinsic
Means score
4.536
EXTRINSIC
44
The Correlation Score Of X and Y Variable
Sample X Y XY X2
Y 2
1 72 95 6840 5184 9025
2 61 89 5429 3721 7921
3 65 78 5070 4225 6084
4 66 99 6534 4358 9801
5 64 91 5824 4096 8281
6 65 92 5980 4225 8462
7 68 91 6188 4624 8281
8 64 100 6400 4096 10000
9 58 93 5394 3364 8649
10 64 92 5888 4096 8462
11 58 88 5104 3364 7744
12 58 73 4234 3364 5329
13 61 100 6100 3721 10000
14 63 87 5481 3969 7569
15 61 97 5917 5429 9409
16 71 94 6674 5041 8836
17 63 96 6048 3969 9216
18 62 87 5394 3844 7569
19 67 93 6231 4489 8649
20 62 89 5518 3844 7921
21 64 86 5504 4096 7396
22 61 95 5795 3721 9025
23 65 94 6110 4225 8836
24 57 81 4617 3249 6561
25 65 97 6305 4225 9409
Total ΣX = 1.585 ΣY = 2.271 ΣXY
=102539
ΣX2 =
144579
ΣY2
=74161039
45
Σ Σ Σ
√ Σ Σ Σ
√
√
√
√
46
Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 score
AAAA 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 72
BBBB 5 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 5 3 61
CCCC 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 3 5 4 4 1 5 5 5 65
DDDD 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 66
EEEE 4 4 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 64
FFFF 4 4 5 5 4 3 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 65
GGGG 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 68
HHHH 5 4 4 3 4 4 5 4 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 64
IIII 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 5 3 2 3 4 4 3 58
JJJJ 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 5 4 3 5 5 3 64
KKKK 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 58
LLLL 5 4 5 3 2 4 5 5 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 58
MMMM 5 5 3 4 3 5 3 3 5 3 5 5 4 3 5 61
NNNN 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 3 63
OOOO 4 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 4 5 5 3 4 5 4 61
PPPP 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 71
QQQQ 5 4 5 5 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 1 3 4 5 63
RRRR 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 5 5 5 3 3 5 62
SSSS 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 67
TTTT 5 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 62
UUUU 5 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 64
APPENDIX 3 THE SCORE LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
47
VVVV 5 4 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 4 5 5 3 5 61
WWWW 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 4 4 5 1 5 5 5 65
XXXX 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 57
YYYY 5 5 4 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 4 5 65
Jumlah 1.585
48
Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Score
AAAA 5 5 5 5 5 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 95
BBBB 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 89
CCCC 3 4 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 4 78
DDDD 3 5 5 4 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 99
EEEE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 4 5 4 5 5 4 3 91
FFFF 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 92
GGGG 3 4 5 5 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 91
HHHH 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100
IIII 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 3 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 5 93
JJJJ 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 92
KKKK 5 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 5 4 3 88
LLLL 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 3 4 4 3 3 5 5 4 4 4 2 3 3 73
MMMM 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100
NNNN 5 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 3 4 5 3 87
OOOO 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 97
APPENDIX 4 THE SCORE THE STUDENTS THINKING STYLES
49
PPPP 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 94
QQQQ 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 96
RRRR 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 3 87
SSSS 4 3 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 89
TTTT 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 4 3 86
UUUU 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 95
VVVV 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 94
XXXX 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 81
YYYY 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 97
Jumlah 2.271
50
Background questioner appendix A
1. Name :
2. Class :
3. Gender :
4. Age :
Strategy Inventory for language learning (LLS)
How to fill: give a check list from one of the answers, Strongly Agree (5),
Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2) and Strongly Disagree (1)
List of Metacognitive Strategies Questions:
1. I pay attention when someone speake English
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
2. I think about my progress in learning English
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
3. I have a clear goal of being able to improve my English skills
51
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
4. I am looking for opportunities to be able to use English
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
5. I am looking for a friend or partner that I can teach to speak English
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
List of Affective Strategies questions:
1. I try to relax when I'm afraid of using English
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
52
2. I am aware of being nervous or tense while studying or using English
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
3. I encourage myself to speak English even when I'm afraid of making mistakes
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
4. I write about myself in an English learning book
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
5. I give a present for myself when I can use English well
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
53
List of Social Strategies Questions:
1. I practice English with other friends or students
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
2. when I don't understand a word or word in English, I ask him to slow down or
repeat his words
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
3. I try to learn about the culture of native English speakers
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
4. I ask questions in English
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
54
e. Strongly Disagree
5. I ask native speakers of English to correct me when I speak
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
Background questionnaire appendix B
1. Name :
2. Class :
3. Gender :
4. Age :
Thinking styles qeustionnaire
How to fill: give a check list from one of the answers, Strongly Agree (5), Agree
(4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2) and Strongly Disagree (1)
List of Internal Styles Questions:
1. I prefer to deal with certain problems myself rather than by asking my friends
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
2. When talking or writing about the main idea, I stick to one main idea
a. Strongly Agree
55
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
3. I like to concentrate on one task at a time
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
4. I like the problem where I need to pay attention to the details
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
5. I like projects that have a clear plan and purpose structure
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
6. I like routines where I can follow the set routines
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
56
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
7. I like to examine and assess points of ideas that are different or conflicting
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
8. I like to do assignments or solve my own problems
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
9. I am careful to use the right method to solve the problem
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
10. I tend not to pay attention to every problem in the main idea
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
57
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
List of External Styles:
1. In the learning process I and friends are always ready
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
2. I like situations where I interact with other people
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
3. I like working on assignments with my friends
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
4. I do work and deal with problems with my friends
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
58
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
5. I like to check assignments and ask my friends for advice to determine the
correct answer
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
6. I solve the problem using the strategies or ideas of my friends
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
7. me and my friends are always motivated in learning
a a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
8. in my class and friends always ask questions about the material being taught
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
59
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
9. me and my friends always give answers about the material being taught
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
10. I and ordinary friends don't understand the material taught
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
60
CURRICULUM VITAE
sumiati was born in Pulau Longos July 07 th
, 1995.
She is the last child from four siblings. His father
name is Hamarung her mother name is Ice. and she is
Muslim.
In 2009, she was graduated from SDN Pulau
Longos and continued her study at SMPN 5 Satap Pulau Longos and graduated in
2012.
In the same year, She was continued her study at MAN Labuan Bajo and
finished in 2015. After finished in Senior high school she was procesded her study
in Muhammadiyah University of Makassar in 2015. She is accepted in English
Education Department of Teacher Training Education Faculty
At the end of her study, she could finish her thesis with the title “The Correlation
Between Language Learning Strategies and Studatns Thinking Styles At Twelve
Grade Of SMA Negeri 5 Selayar.