THE ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES (LLSs) APPLIED BY THE LEARNERS OF THE FIRST GRADE

ACCELERATION AND REGULAR CLASS AT SMAN 1 JEMBER IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2009/2010

THESIS

ByArnis Silvia

NIM 050210401170

ENGLISH EDUCATIONDEPARTEMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATIONFACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF JEMBER2010

THE ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES (LLSs) APPLIED BY THE LEARNERS OF THE FIRST GRADE

ACCELERATION AND REGULAR CLASS AT SMAN 1 JEMBER IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2009/2010

THESISdone to fulfill the final assignment and as one of requirements

for achiving S1-degree at English DepartmentFaculty of Teacher Training and Education

Jember University

ByArnis Silvia

NIM 050210401170

ENGLISH EDUCATIONDEPARTEMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATIONFACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF JEMBER2010

ii

APPROVAL SHEET

THE ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES (LLSs) APPLIED BY THE LEARNERS OF THE FIRST GRADE

ACCELERATION AND REGULAR CLASS AT SMAN 1 JEMBER IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2009/2010

THESISdone to fulfill the final assignment and as one of requirements

for achiving S1-degree at English DepartmentFaculty of Teacher Training and Education

Jember University

Name : Arnis SilviaIdentification Number : 050210401170Level : 2005Place, Date of Birth : Jember, 24 February 1988Department : Language and Arts Program : English Education

Approved by:

Consultant I Consultant II

Drs. Sugeng Ariyanto, MA Drs. Annur Rofiq, MA, M. ScNIP.19590412 198702 1 001 NIP. 19681025 199903 1 001

iii

APPROVAL OF THE EXAMINATION COMMITEE

This thesis was approved and received by the Examination Committee of the

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Jember University.

Day : Wednesday

Date : June 16th , 2010

Place : The Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Examiner team

The Chairperson The Secretary

Drs. Bambang Suharjito, M.Ed Drs. Annur Rofiq, M.A., M.Sc NIP. 19611023 198902 1 001 NIP. 19681025 199903 1 001

The members,

1. Dra. Musli Ariani,

M.App.Ling 1.

NIP. 19680602 199403 2 001

2. Drs. Sugeng Ariyanto,

M.A. 2.

NIP. 19590412 198702 1 001

The Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

The Dean,

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

iv

NIP. 19540712 198003 1 005

DEDICATION

***

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

***

v

MOTTO

"It takes better teachers to focus on the learners.”(Peter Strevens)

“We cannot teach another person directly; we can only facilitate his (or her) learning.”

(Carl Rogers)

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praise be to Allah for the blessing and mercy that guide me to finish this

thesis entitled “The Analysis of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) Applied by

the Learners of the First Grade Acceleration and Regular Class at SMAN 1

Jember in Academic Year 2009/2010”.

I would also like to express my gratitude to these following people:

1. the first and second consultant, Drs. Sugeng Ariyanto, M.A and Drs.

Annur Rofiq, M.A, M.Sc for their suggestion and guidance.

2. Mr. Handoyo Puji Widodo, S.Pd, Postgrad.Dipp.App.Ling, M.A and

Dra.Musli Ariani, M.App.Ling for their help and suggestion.

3. The headmaster, the head of acceleration program, the English teacher

and the learners of SMAN 1 Jember, for their help and support.

4. other parties who helped me in finishing this thesis.

Hopefully this thesis would be beneficial for the readers, for the

researchers, and for the development of SLA research. Any suggestion for the

better improvement would be wisely considered.

Jember, June 2010

The writer

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

COVER PAGE........................................................................................................i

TITLE PAGE.........................................................................................................ii

APPROVAL SHEET............................................................................................iii

APPROVAL OF THE EXAMINATION COMMITEE ...................................iv

DEDICATION........................................................................................................v

MOTTO ................................................................................................................vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................vii

TABLE OF CONTENT .....................................................................................viii

LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................x

THE LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................xi

SUMMARY..........................................................................................................xii

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

1.1 Background of Research........................................................................1

1.2 Research Problem...................................................................................2

1.3 Research Objective.................................................................................2

1.4 Operational Definition of Key Terms....................................................2

1.5 Research Significance............................................................................3

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE..................................4

2.1 The Nature of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs)............................4

2.2 The Nature of Communicative Competence..........................................7

2.3 The Oxford’s Classification of LLS.....................................................10

2.4 Factors Affecting LLS Choice.............................................................13

2.5 Studies on LLS ....................................................................................16

2.6 The Importance of LLS in Language Learning....................................18

2.7 The Nature of First Grade Acceleration and Regular Learners...........20

2.8 The Nature of SILL..............................................................................21

viii

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD...........................................................22

3.1 Research Design...................................................................................22

3.2 Area Determination Method................................................................24

3.3 Respondent Determination Method.....................................................24

3.3 Data Collection Method.......................................................................25

3.5 Data Analysis Method..........................................................................27

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...............................................29

4.1 The Results of Collected Data..............................................................29

4.1.1 The Results of Interview.......................................................29

4.1.2 The Results of Documentation..............................................31

4.1.3 The Results of SILL..............................................................31

4.2 The Discussion of the Data..................................................................37

4.2.1 The Discussion of Interview.................................................38

4.1.1 The Discussion of SILL Results...........................................38

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION......................................42

5.1 Conclusion............................................................................................42

5.2 Suggestion............................................................................................42

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Research Matrix

Appendix 2. The Original Version of SILL

Appendix 3. The Modified Version of SILL Used in the Research

Appendix 4. The Interview Results

Appendix 5. The Name Lists of the Learners

Appendix 6. The Coding of LLS

Appendix 7. The Results of SILL in X.acceleration and X.3

Appendix 8. The Rank of LLS Use in X.acceleration and X.3

Appendix 10. The Letter of Statement from the Faculty

Appendix 11. The Letter of Statement from SMAN 1 Jember

Appendix 12. The Consultation Sheet

x

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. The Modified Likert Scale Used in SILL ................................... 26

Table 2. The Sample of Mode Analysis ................................................... 33

Table 3. The Results of Questionnaire in X.acceleration.......................... 34

Table 3. The Results of Questionnaire in X.3........................................... 37

xi

SUMMARY

Silvia, Arnis. 2010.The Analysis of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) Applied

by the Learners of the First Grade Acceleration and Regular Class at SMAN 1

Jember in Academic Year 2009/2010.

Thesis, English Education Program, Language and Arts Department, Faculty of

Teacher Training and Education, Jember University.

Key words : language learning strategies, SILL, non-participant observation

Language Learning Strategy (LLS) is a significant factor for achieving the

teaching and learning goal which is communicative competence. It was like

Oxford (1990:1) stated that “learning strategies are important for language

learning as tools for active, self-directed involvement, which were essential for

developing communicative competence”. The previous researches described the

distribution of LLS in different groups and found significant correlations between

LLS and English proficiency. This research was intended to describe the use of

LLS in two different classes: the first grade acceleration and regular class (X.3)

without comparing or correlating the related variables. The research participants

were 54 learners consisting of 20 learners from X.acceleration class and 34

learners from X.3.

A modified SILL version 7.0 with modified Likert Scale was used to

acquire the frequency of LLS use between the two classes. Descriptive statistic

(frequency and mode) was applied in analyzing the results of SILL.

The SILL results revealed that the mostly used strategies in X.acceleration

class were compensation strategies while in X.3 the most used strategies were

metacognitive strategies.

The results were discussed and recommendation for future research was

suggested.

xii

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter covers the background of the research, problems of the

research, operational definition of the key terms, objectives of the research, the

significance of the research and the limitation of the research.

1.1 Background of the Research

English as a Foreign Language (EFL) is an essential subject at present

because of its function as a communicative means in this borderless world. It

implies that the English teaching in the classroom should raise the learners’

communicative competence (for further explanation of communicative

competence, see Chapter 2, p.9). In order to succeed this goal (communicative

competence), a synergy between teachers and learners are required since the

success of a teaching and learning process is not only laid on the effectiveness of

teaching methods but also laid on learning strategies the learners apply. Oxford

(1990:1) states that learning strategies are important for language learning as tools

for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing

communicative competence.

Some studies on English Language Teaching (ELT), especially in Jember,

commonly concerned the teaching strategies. There was no study on language

learning strategies conducted in the field yet, whereas foreign researchers have

conducted studies on language learning strategies (henceforth LLS) such as

Oxford (1996), Cohen (1998), Chamot (2001) as cited by Tseng (2005: 321). The

findings of their studies showed there was a tendency of LLS use between more

proficient and less proficient learners.

Based on the preliminary study conducted by interviewing the head of

acceleration program, there was two kinds of first grade classes in SMAN 1

Jember in which one of them was regarded as the most proficient class. This

information encouraged the researcher to conduct a descriptive research aiming at

describing the LLS use in two different classes: the first grade acceleration and

first grade regular class. The researcher examined the trend of LLS use in the two

xiii

classes and reported them. A modified Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

(SILL) questionnaire version 7.0 (Oxford, 1990) was applied to obtain the type

and frequency of distribution of LLS. The questionnaires used Likert-scale

learners’ response ranging from 1(never) to 5 (always). SILL and descriptive

statistics were used in describing the frequency of LLS use and the modes of LLS

in each class. For this purpose, a study entitled “The Analysis of Language

Learning Strategies (LLSs) Applied by the Learners of the First Grade

Acceleration and Regular Class at SMAN 1 Jember in Academic Year

2009/2010” was conducted.

1.2. Research Problem

Regarding the above background of research, the problem of this research

was formulated as:

“ What Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) applied by the learners of

the first grade acceleration and regular class at SMAN 1 JEMBER in

academic year 2009/2010?”

1.3. Research Objective

This study was designed to describe the LLSs applied by the learners of

the first grade acceleration and regular class at SMAN 1 JEMBER in academic

year 2009/2010

1.4 Operational Definition of Key Terms

An operational definition contained a guideline to understand the concepts

and indicators of the study and it also helped the researcher and the reader to get

mutual understanding of the concepts being examined. Some key terms used in

this study were defined as follows.

1.4.1 Language Learning Strategies (LLS)

Basically, there are two types of learning strategy: skill learning strategy

and language learning strategy (Ellis, 1996: 530). Skill learning strategy referred

xiv

to learners’ effort to become skillful in a specific skill, such as reading, writing,

reading, or listening. The aim of skill learning strategy was to become skilled

reader, writer, reader or listener while language learning strategy deals with the

learners’ effort to master new linguistic and sociolinguistic information. Language

learning strategy was more general than skill learning strategy.

Language learning strategy is any strategies, steps, or techniques that are

applied by learners to succeed their language learning process. There are some

types of learning strategy proposed by some linguists. However, the researcher

chose Oxford’s classification of language learning strategies which consisted of

six types of learning strategies, such as: memory strategies, cognitive strategies,

compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social

strategies (for further detail of the explanation of Oxfords’ classification of LLS,

see Chapter 2, p.10).

1.5. Research Significance

The findings of this study were expected to contribute significantly to the

teaching learning process, especially for these following parties:

1.5.1 The English Teacher

Either for the class teachers or other teachers, this study would contribute

to opening another window for studies in teaching and learning. The previous

studies guided the teachers to select, make, and apply teaching strategies and

techniques regardless of their appropriateness with the learners’ LLS. This study

findings were expected to provide feedback to the teachers concerning their

learners’ LLS. By considering the learners’ LLS, teachers were expected to adapt

their teaching techniques with the learners’ LLS so that a harmonious

collaboration between teacher and learners could be created.

This study was at the same time introducing an instrument (SILL

questionnaire) constructed by Oxford (1990) which can help teachers to analyze

their learners’ LLS. This would be beneficial if the teacher conducted this

questionnaire in the beginning of the semester. Teachers would know their

learners’ LLS, their favorite/less favorite learning activities as well as the

xv

appropriate learning tasks to the learners. Thus, teachers could choose the

appropriate learning materials and methods so that the learning strategies and the

teaching strategies were met. Consequently, the teaching and learning goal would

be achieved more effectively.

1.5.2 The Learners

This study is aimed at informing the learners about kinds of Language

Learning Strategies (LLSs). When the learners read the questionnaire items, they

might realize that there are a lot of strategies in learning English in which some of

the strategies have been applied and the others have not been applied yet. Besides,

they would become aware the frequency of using the strategies in English learning

when they respond to the questionnaire.

1.5.3 The Future Researchers

This study described the LLSs used by learners without correlating some

variables such as: age, gender, and English proficiency. This study could be used

as a reference for future studies which are interested in the use of LLS in order to

expand the findings. Future studies might investigate the correlation between LLS

and some mentioned variables or to investigate whether the LLS use has a positive

effect on the enhancement of proficiency.

xvi

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the theories related to the topics of study, such as:

the nature of LLS (Language Learning Strategy), the nature of communicative

competence, the Oxford’s taxonomy of LLS, factors affecting LLS choice, the

importance of LLS in language learning, studies on LLS, the nature of first grade

acceleration and non acceleration class, and the nature of SILL.

2.1 The Nature of Language Learning Strategies (LLSs)

An English as a Foreign Langugae (EFL) classroom was like a problem-

solving environment where learners faced new inputs and difficult tasks given by

the teacher. The learners were always trying to find the quickest and easiest way

to solve the difficulties in doing the tasks, and that when learning strategies are

needed. All language learners might use language learning strategies either

consciously or subconsciously when they were facing and performing tasks in the

classroom.

Learning strategy according to Rubin (in Tseng, 2005:321) means “any

sets of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the learners to facilitate the

obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information”. Further, he identified six

characteristics of the language learning strategies:

1) language learning strategies refer to specific actions or techniques. They are not characteristics that describe a learners’ general approach.

2) some of these actions will be observable and other will not be observable3) language learning strategies are problem oriented. Learners utilize them to

facilitate the acquisition, storage, or retrieval or use of information.4) language learning strategies could be consciously employed, but for some

learning problems they are automated.5) language learning strategies are behaviors that are amenable to change.

(Rubin in Tseng 2005:322)

Rubin’s version emphasized that learning strategies varied from one

learner to another. Therefore, it could not be drawn a general similarity of one’s

LLS with the others’. When one strategy worked well on one learner, it did not

mean that it worked on the other learners too. Thus, this couldn’t be generalized

xvii

that an appropriate LLS for a group of learners was the appropriate strategy for

the other groups.

Some strategies could be observed, such as: making schedule, starting

conversation in English, practicing English with peers, but some others are

unobservable, such as: thinking about learning progress, relating new information

with prior knowledge, analyzing the strength and weaknesses, and so on. On this

point, teachers might not be able to observe how learners use their LLSs.

LLSs could be consciously employed by the learners. Anyhow, in certain

cases, LLSs could be automatically applied because of the rapid practices or use

of the LLSs. Since it could be a conscious process, LLS can be manipulated by

training.

Further, Oxford (1990:9) made a list of 12 features of learning strategies,

which mentioned that language learning strategies:

1) contribute to the main goal, communicative competence2) allow learners to become more self-directed3) expand the role of language teachers4) are problem-oriented5) are specific actions taken by learners6) involve many aspects of the learners, not just the cognitive7) support learning both directly and indirectly8) are not always observable9) are often conscious10) can be taught11) are flexible12) are influenced by a variety of factors. (Oxford, 1990:9)

Oxford’s version indicated that LLSs gave much contribution to the

learning goal, which was communicative competence (see p.7) as it supported

learning both directly and indirectly. LLSs directly supported learning process

which was involving the language in direct way. The strategies which dealed with

the language directly were called direct strategies, including: memory strategies,

compensation strategies, and cognitive strategies. On the other hand, LLS also

indirectly assisted the learners to cope with the language in indirect way. These

strategies were called indirect strategies consisting metacognitive strategies,

affective strategies, and social strategies.

xviii

LLS was task-oriented, as it could be applied based on what the learners

were supposed to do in their EFL classroom. Certain tasks might require certain

strategies, for example: memory strategies are needed to remember new

vocabularies; cognitive strategies are applied when learners faced reading tasks,

and so forth.

When LLSs helped the learners to be more self-directed, the role of their

teacher expanded, from the knowledge presenter to the mediator or facilitator of

learning. Learners could be so autonomous that they can construct their

knowledge. To reach this goal, learners might be taught or trained about how the

optimize their LLS. It was like what Oxford says above that “LLS can be taught”.

The teachability of LLS relied on the nature that LLS could be a conscious

process. The teacher could be the trainer for his learners in explaining and training

the learners about what strategies that were commonly used and effective in EFL

learning.

To sum up, LLSs are any steps, thoughts, techniques, behaviors which

help learners to succeed in the learning process to achieve communicative

competence. LLSs are specific from one learner to another, either observable or

unobservable and applied either consciously or subconsciously. The learners

might apply different strategies for the same tasks depend on the personal

preferences and some influencing factors (later will be discussed in the following

chapter).

2.2 The Nature of Communicative Competence

The idea of communicative competence originated from Chomsky’s

distinction between competence and performance. Later, Hymes, Saville-Troike,

and Canale & Swain viewed it from their own perspectives. Firstly, Hymes (in

Ohno, 2005:26) defined communicative competence as “knowledge of the rules

for understanding and producing both the referential and social meaning of

language”. He formulated an acronym of language use dealing with

communicative competence which was known as SPEAKING : Setting and scene,

Participants, Ends, Act sequence, Key, Instrumentalities, Norms of interaction and

xix

interpretation, and Genre (Hymes in Kamiya, 2000: 64). “Setting” referred to the

time and place while scene describes the environment of the situation.

“Participants” referred to the person/people who is/are involved in the speech

including the speaker and the audience. “Ends” meant the purpose and goals of

the speech along with any outcomes of the speech. “Act Sequence” referred to the

order of the events that took place during the speech. “Key” referred to the overall

tone or manner of the speech. “Instrumentalities” meant the form and the style of

the speech being given. “Norms” referred to what was socially acceptable at the

event, and Genre meant the type of speech that was being given.

Hymes’ formula implied that in order to communicate a language well,

learners did not only need to learn the vocabulary and grammar, but also needed

to know the context in which the words were used. Learners should not only

master the grammatical rules, but should also consider those aspects to

communicate well. For a learner to say he or she knows a language, therefore, he

or she must know “when to speak, when not, ... what to talk about with whom,

when, where, in what manner” (Hymes in Kamiya, 2000:65)

Secondly, Saville-Troike (in Kamiya, 2000:66) who was in line with

Hymes, divided a central construct of communicative competence into three types

of knowledge: linguistic, interactional, and cultural competence (Saville-Troike in

Kamiya, 2000:66). Linguistic competence referred to the knowledge of full-range

of the linguistic code, including linguistic features that carry social meaning.

Interactional competence referred to the knowledge and expectation of social

norms and conventions. Cultural competence referred to the social structure of the

speech community and the values and attitudes attached to language use. Shortly,

a learner should know the language variations among cultures, social norms and

conventions, values and attitudes, which were included in the language use.

Lastly, Canale and Swain (in Kamiya, 2000:66) strongly believed that the

study of grammatical competence was as essential to the study of communicative

competence as was the study of sociolinguistic competence. Then they described

that communicative competence covered four areas of competences: grammatical

competence, sociolinguistics competence, discourse competence, and strategic

xx

competence. Grammatical competence referred to an ability to express and

interpret literal meaning of utterances (such as: acquisition of pronunciation,

vocabulary, word and sentence meaning, construction of grammatical sentences,

correct spelling, et cetera.) Sociolinguistics competence referred to how utterances

were produced and understood in different sociolinguistic contexts (like:

understanding of speech act conventions, awareness of norms of stylistic

appropriateness, the use of a language to signal social relationships, and so on).

Discourse competence concerned in cohesion and coherence of various kinds of

discourse in L2 (for example: use of appropriate pronouns, synonyms,

conjunctions, substitution, repetition, marking of congruity and continuity, topic-

comment sequence, and as such). Strategic competence attempted to compensate

for deficiencies/handicaps in the grammatical and sociolinguistic competence or

to enhance the effectiveness of communication (such as: paraphrasing, how to

address others when uncertain of their relative social status, slow speech for

rhetorical effect, and so forth).

In EFL classroom, learners’ goal in the EFL learning activity was to

achieve their communicative competence either in spoken or written forms. This

meant that the learners were capable of not only constructing utterances in correct

grammatical forms but also communicating well. As Brown (in Kamiya, 2000:75)

said that “focus in a classroom should be on all of the components of

communicative competence of which grammatical or linguistic competence is just

part”. In other words, the development of communicative competence required a

real use of language in which all of the components of communicative

competence were involved. By raising the students’ awareness of their LLS use,

this goal was hoped to be achieved. LLSs help the learners participating actively

in the meaningful and contextualized learning atmosphere which was involving all

components of communicative competence. By this means, the communicative

competence would be gained.

Additionally, Oxford (1990:8) explained further about how LLS can

stimulate the development of communicative competence. For instance,

metacognitive strategies assist the learners to manage their cognition to focus,

xxi

plan, and evaluate their own progress. Affective strategies raise the learners’ self-

confidence in performing tasks and involving themselves actively in language

learning. This active involvement is a requirement for obtaining the

communicative competence. Social strategies support the learners to increase

social interaction with others and to gain understanding. These two characteristics

are also necessary to reach communicative competence. Cognitive strategies are

useful for understanding and recalling new information, which is very important

in the process of becoming competent in using a new language. Compensation

strategies work on overcoming the limitations of knowledge and on continuing to

communicate. As a result, the communication is not handicapped, and that is an

indication of communicative competence achievement.

Broadly speaking, LLSs contribute concretely towards the main goal of

language learning, the communicative competence. Therefore, raising students’

awareness of LLS could be a way of achieving the communicative competence.

2.3 The Oxford’s Classification of LLS

Oxford’s classification has been approved and used by researchers who

concerned LLS. Oxford’s classification was “perhaps the most comprehensive

classification of learning strategies to date” (Ellis, 1994: 539). Oxford (1990:16-

21) classified LLS into two classes: direct strategies and indirect strategies. Direct

strategies help learners to learn the target language by using the target language

directly. They consist of three strategies: memory strategies, cognitive strategies,

and compensation strategies. Indirect strategies support learners to learn the target

language without involving the target language directly during their learning

process. They consist of three subdivisions such as: metacognitive strategies,

affective strategies, and social strategies. Each strategy’s explanation can be read

below. The examples presented in each strategy are adapted from the

questionnaire (SILL). The discussion of SILL questionnaire can be read in the

following section.

xxii

2.3.1 Memory strategies

Memory strategies deal with techniques which help learners to remember

and store the language/information more quickly. Learners might use sounds

(rhyming), images (a mental picture of the word/the meaning of the word), body

movement, mechanicals (flashcards), or location (on a page or blackboard). The

strategies were suitable with these statements: “I use new English words in a

sentence so I can remember them”, “I sing the new words into rhymes”, “I use

flashcards to remember new English words”, “I act out the English words”, “I

review English lesson often”, and so on.

2.3.2 Cognitive strategies

Cognitive strategies deal with learners’ mental strategies used to make

sense of their learning. They enable learners to manipulate the language material

in direct ways. They involve reasoning, analysis, note-taking, summarizing,

synthesizing, outlining, reorganizing information to develop stronger schemas

(knowledge structures), practicing in naturalistic settings, and practicing structures

and sounds formally. These statements referred to these examples: “I say or write

new English words several times”, “I try to talk like native English speakers”, “I

try to find patterns in English”, and such.

2.3.3 Compensation strategies

Compensation strategies concern with learners’ effort to make up their

missing knowledge in the process of comprehending or producing the target

language. They were needed to overcome any gaps in knowledge of the language.

For example: “When I find unfamiliar English words, I try to guess”, “When I

can’t say English words during my conversation, I use gestures”, “When I can’t

say a word in English, I use different words or phrase that means the same”, and

so forth.

2.3.4 Metacognitive strategies

Metacognitive strategies are strategies applied by learners to regulate or

manage their learning, such as: identifying their own learning style preferences

and needs, planning for language tasks, gathering and organizing materials,

arranging a study space and a schedule, monitoring mistakes, evaluating task

xxiii

success, and evaluating the success of any types of learning strategy. The sub

skills referred to these statements: “I plan my schedule so that I have enough time

to study English”, “I think about my progress in learning English”, “I have clear

goals for improving my English skills”, and so on.

2.3.5 Affective strategies

Affective strategies help learners to take control their emotions, attitude,

and motivation during the learning process. Affective strategies include these sub

skills: identifying one’s mood and anxiety level, talking about feelings, rewarding

oneself for good performance, and using deep breathing or positive self-talk.

These statements were suitable with these examples: “I encourage myself to speak

English even when I am afraid of making mistakes”, “I write down my feelings in

a language learning diary”, “I give myself a reward when I do well in English”, et

cetera.

2.3.6 Social strategies

Social strategies help learners to learn through interaction with others.

Social strategies included these sub skills: asking questions to get verification of a

confusing point, asking for help in doing language task, talking with a native-

speaking conversation partner, and exploring cultural and social norms. This

strategies were suitable with these statements: “If I do not understand what people

said, I ask them to slow down or say it again”, “I practice English with my

friend”, “I try to practice English with a native speaker”, “I ask my friend if I do

not understand during my learning”, or “I learn other English-speaking countries’

culture” (adapted from Oxford, 2003: 16-18)

2.4 Factors Affecting LLS Choice

LLS preference is influenced by some factors. Those factors are coming

either from the learning themselves such as: age, sex, motivation, learning style,

the learning experience or from situational and social factors, such as: the setting,

the kind of the tasks, et cetera. Byalistok as mentioned by Tseng (2005:323),

speculates that such factors might relate to “characteristics of the learners, such as

language learning aptitude, attitude, and motivation, personality; or relate to

xxiv

characteristics of learning situation, such as length of exposure to the language,

the teaching method employed.”.

2.4.1 Gender

Gender difference contributed to the tendencies of LLS choice. Oxford &

Green (1995:266) found that female learners were reported to use greater overall

strategy use than male learners. Oxford & Nyikos as restated in Oxford & Green

(1995:266) found that female learners use more LLS than male learners in three of

five factors: formal ruled practice, general study strategies, and conversational

input elicitation strategies. In line with this, Tseng (2005:324) stated that female

learners show more use of social learning strategies, more frequent use of formal

rule-based practice strategies and conversational input elicitation strategies.

A study conducted by Sy (as cited by Green & Oxford, 1995:266) in China

reported a significant difference between genders. Female learners used higher

frequency of cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, and social strategies than

the male learners. Later, Kato (2005:256) found that there was a significant

gender difference on affective and social strategies in which the female learners

used them more often. However, on memory, compensation, and metacognitive

strategies, both genders did not show significant difference. These findings were

not trying to consider particular gender to be better than the other. But they were

important to notice, that there might be a consistent difference between genders

for particular strategies. As Green & Oxford (1995:266) stated that “If gender

differences appear in many studies across different cultures, this suggests that

biological and/or socialization-related causes for these differences might exist.”

This suggestion did not reflect the overall state of LLS preference between

genders. The factors cultural background, location, or social situation might bear

different results.

2.4.2 Age

Oxford (1990:3) said that students from different ages of EFL learning

used different strategies, with certain strategies often being employed by older or

more advanced students. It was strengthened by Brown (1983) as cited by Ellis

(1994: 541) who concluded that young children’s strategies are often simple,

xxv

while mature learners’ strategies are more complex. This situation occured

conditionally as the result of exposures, education, or previous language learning

experience was experienced. Oxford and Nyikos (1989:295) stated that in general

terms, more experienced language learners used LLS far more often than less

experienced learners.

2.4.3 English proficiency

Takeuchi’s study (in Kato, 2005: 244) on the correlation between LLS and

English achievement concluded that some LLS were positively related to English

proficiency, such as: to write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English; to try

not to translate word-for-word; to find the meaning of an English word by

dividing words into parts to find meaning; and to pay attention when someone is

speaking English. Takeuchi employed multiple regression analysis between SILL

and CELT (Comprehensive English Language Test).

Later, a study conducted by Yamato (in Kato, 2005: 244) also resulted

positive correlation between LLS and English proficiency. He mentioned six

factors which affected the English proficiency: metacognitive strategies, cognitive

strategies, heuristic strategies, socioaffective strategies, conceptually driven

strategies, and pleasure-oriented strategies. Kato’s (2005:256) findings indicated

that metacognitive, social, and cognitive strategies showed active effect on

English proficiency. Some strategies such as: seeking opportunities to use or

practice English, managing own English learning, and overcoming some

difficulties in learning English showed positive results on English proficiency.

2.4.4 Type of task

Oxford (1994:3) stated that the nature of the task help learners determining

the strategies naturally employed to carry out the task. Different types of task

required different combination of LLS. Constructing a dialogue required different

strategies from listening to radio podcasts. When the learners were asked to (for

example) making a dialogue, they might combine social strategies (asking their

friend about some words they couldn’t say in English/cooperating with their

peers), compensation strategies (using different phrases when they couldn’t say a

word in English/using gestures to emphasize their meaning/asking their partner to

xxvi

repeat their sayings), and affective strategies (encourage themselves to be

confident). But when they were asked to fill in the blanked spaces to make a

complete story, they might combine compensation strategies (guessing the

meaning for the given sentences) and memory strategies (relate the new word with

their previous knowledge).

This study’s aim was to describing the types of strategies (LLS) used by

the learners of two different classes. The LLS choice could not be separated by its

affecting factors. Despite the tendency of LLS choice might be influenced by

these mentioned factors, this research was just aimed at describing the types of

LLS without correlating it with these factors since it would need another set of

instruments with different research design.

2.5 Studies on LLS

The focus of education research changed from behavioristic theory to

cognitive theory in the 1950s – 1960s (Mayer in Tseng, 2005:322). As a result,

the paradigm of the learners changed from that of a recipient of knowledge to that

of a constructor of knowledge. Thus, the view of learners as passive recipient

shifted into active constructor of knowledge.

Oxford & Nyikos (1989) started a study in discussing variables affecting

the LLS preferences including years of study, sex, and major among 1,200 foreign

language students in a conventional language setting by using SILL. The results

showed that “the degree of expressed motivation was the most powerful influence

on the choice of language learning strategies, that sex had a profound effect on

strategy choice, and other variables had significant effects on the reported use of

strategies.” (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989: 294)

“A Closer Look at Learning Strategies, L2 Proficiency and Gender”, a

study administered by Green and Oxford in 1995, attempted to analyze the

correlation between LLS - English Proficiency and LLS – genders. They

conducted the research included 374 college students at three different course

xxvii

levels at the University of Puerto Rico. SILL was used as the instrument for LLS,

while ESLAT (English as a Second Language Achievement Test) is used for

indicating English proficiency. As previous studies reported, this study also found

that more successful learners (higher ESLAT score) used greater LLS than less

successful learners. 14 strategies were reported to be used significantly by females

than males.

Next, Sawako Kato (2005) carried out a research entitled “How Language

Learning Strategies affect English Proficiency in Japanese University Students”.

He addressed some objectives, such as: 1) to explore the distribution of LLS use

by Japanese University students, 2) to determine how LLS relates to the English

proficiency, 3) to examine the difference of LLS use between genders. The LLS

was analyzed using SILL version 7.0 translated into Japanese while the English

Proficiency was shown by TOEIC score. 194 students from 1th – 4th year

participated in this study. The study produced a significant correlation between

LLS (especially metacognitive and affective strategies) and TOEIC score. For

gender variable, it was found that there was no statistically difference for the use

of memory strategies, compensation strategies, and metacognitive strategies. A

significant correlation between genders and LLS was found in the use of

cognitive, affective, and social strategies. (Kato, 2005: 239-262)

Ya-Ling Wu (2008) conducted a descriptive-comparative study between

students at different proficiency levels at National University of Technology in

Taiwan. 137 participants were split into two groups: higher proficiency group and

lower proficiency group based on the scores of entrance exam. SILL version 7.0

was used in this study and the results were analyzed by using independent sample

t-test to find the significant correlation between variables. The study resulted that

higher proficiency group used more cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies

than lower proficiency group. On the other hand, there was no difference in the

use of memory strategies between two groups. (Wu: 1998:75-88).

There has been dozens of researches which cannot be mentioned one by

one in this chapter. However, the other unmentioned research are commonly used

the similar variables, procedures, and instruments. All of those researches was

xxviii

basically describing the distribution of LLS used by the participants before

correlating it to some variables. Adapting Kato’s and Wu’s design in terms of

describing the distribution of LLS used by the participants, this study was

purposed to decribe the Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) applied by the

learners of two different classes (X.acceleration and X.3).

2.6 The Importance of LLS in Language Learning

Knowledge of language learning strategies was essential since the greater

awareness the learners have about their language learning process, the learning

would be more effective and meaningful. There was some importance of LLS in

language learning. Firstly, LLSs are “tools for active, self-directed involvement,

which are essential for developing communicative competence.” For teachers who

are aiming at improving their learners’ communicative competence, they should

be familiar with learning strategies, because learning strategies “contribute in the

development of the communicative competence of the students and those are used

into all strategies which foreign language learners use in learning the target

language and communication strategies” (Lessard-Clouston, 1997). In addition to

developing learners’ communicative competence, LLSs are important because

when teachers train the learners about “what good learners” do in their learning, it

can help the learners to become better language learners. In this case, the learners

would be inspired by more proficient learners.

Secondly, LLS can improve learners’ language skills in a better way.

Fedderholt (in Hismanoglu, 2000) mentioned some major strategies which

contribute a lot for the improvement. Metacognitive strategies improve

organization of learning time, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. Cognitive

strategies include using previous knowledge to help solve new problems.

Socioaffective strategies include asking native speakers to correct their

pronunciation, or asking a classmate to work together on a particular language

problem. Developing skills in these three areas can help the language learners

building up learner independence and autonomy whereby they can take control of

their learning. More specifically, Oxford (1990:317-330) listed the useful

xxix

strategies according to each of the four language skills. For example, taking notes

(cognitive strategies) and paying attention (metacognitive strategies) are useful for

improving listening skill. Grouping, using keywords, semantic mapping (memory

strategies) and summarizing (cognitive strategies) are fruitful in developing

reading skill. Asking for correction, cooperating with peers, developing cultural

understanding (social strategies), lower anxiety in speaking (affective strategies),

using synonym for the words that can be said, using mime or gesture

(compensation) are beneficial for speaking. For writing skill, using mechanical

techniques (memory strategies), repeating new words by using it several time,

practicing (cognitive strategies), using synonym (compensation strategies), self-

monitoring (metacognitive strategies), writing a learning diary (affective

strategies), asking for correction, cooperating with peers (social strategies) are

useful to be developed.

Thirdly, LLSs are good indicators of how learners overcome the problems

occurred during their language learning. Tseng (2005:324) stated that language

learning strategies give language teachers valuable clues about how their students

assess the situation, plan, select appropriate skills so as to understand, learn, or

remember new input presented in the language classroom. These indicators are

definitely referring to the observable LLSs employed by the learners.

Lastly, LLSs are powerful tools to improve the English proficiency as

Oxford (1990:1) stated that “appropriate language learning strategies result in

improved proficiency.” Bialystok (in Hismanoglu, 2000) also stated that language

learning strategies are “to improve competence in a second language” which

focused on how to be more proficient learners. According to Gas and Selinker

(2001:5), there were differences between more proficient learners and less

proficient learners in strategies they applied. More proficient learners were more

able to apply wider range of language strategies in a greater number of situations

than the less ones.

Dealing with the research objective, these importance would be met when

the findings of this research would be used as a feedback by the teacher to reflect

his/her English teaching in the class.

xxx

2.7 The Nature of First Grade Acceleration and Regular Learners

SMAN 1 Jember had two kinds of classes for its first grade learners; they

were regular classes and an acceleration class. Basically, all of the first grade

learners were coming from the regular class. To register as the first grade learners,

they had to pass a local test administered by the school itself. The school

conducted its independent test to recruit its new learners. The test was not similar

to the residential or regional test. To register the entrance tests, the learners should

have average score of 70 for Mathematics, Science, English subject, Social

Science from their reports in Junior High School (taken from semester I to VI).

After passing the institutional test, they were accepted as the students of SMAN 1

Jember. They were then given an opportunity to enter an acceleration class

through serial tests.

The acceleration class was a 20-learner class which placed as the most

proficient class amongst all first grade classes. To enter this class, students from

all first grade classes were given a chance to register. After getting through an IQ

test, some of the applicants would be eliminated. The minimum IQ score required

was 125 in less or more. After this procedure, the students should have an

administrative selection. A minimum 80 of average score for Mathematics,

Science, Economics and English subject was a must have grade to pass the

selection.

As the goal of SMAN 1 Jember was to be an International Standardized

School, this school was preparing the students to be ready and able to

communicate actively in English. Thus, SMAN 1 Jember administered an ESP

(English for Specific Purposes) as its additional subject. The materials used for

this ESP subject was a TOEFL preparation.

One of the objectives of this study was to describe the LLS use in two

classes (acceleration and regular class). For this purpose, the researcher picked a

class as a representative of regular class. In fact, there was no significant

difference among first grade classes. Thus, the researcher asked the first grade

English teacher to choose any class which is suitable for this study. The English

xxxi

teacher suggested Class X.3 as the “first grade regular class”. Both classes

(acceleration class and Class X.3) were taught by the same teacher.

The acceleration class consisted of 20 students, 7 females and 13 males.

The age ranged between 14-17 years old. In another side, Class X.3 consisted of

34 students, 24 females and 10 males. In acceleration class, the number of male

learners is bigger than other classes which are commonly dominated by female

students.

2.8 The Nature of SILL

As Ellis (1996:539) stated that Oxford taxonomy is the most

comprehensive one, her instrument that was known as SILL has widely used in

large scale of studies. This form of questionnaire has been the key instrument in

more than 40 studies, including 12 dissertations and theses, involving

approximately 8000 students around the world (Green & Oxford, 1995: 264).

The SILL was a standardized measurement for learners which was

translated in many languages, and as such can be used to collect and analyze

information about large numbers of language learners. It has also been used in

studies that correlated LLS use with variables such as learning styles, gender,

proficiency level, and culture. Oxford stated that this instrument has been

extensively checked for reliability and validated in multiple ways (Oxford &

Stock, 1995: 4).

Considering those facts, SILL was a well approved and recommended

instrument to use in measuring the Language Learning Strategies use with various

variables thus the researcher applied this questionnaire as the research instrument.

xxxii

III. RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter presents the research design, the area determination method,

the respondent determination method, the data collection method and the data

analysis method.

3.1 Research Design

The objective of this research was to describe the data dealing with the

LLS use in the two classes; X.acceleration and X.3 (regular class) at SMAN 1

Jember in the second semester in academic year 2009/2010. Regarding the

research objective, the appropriate research design was descriptive research

instead of experimental or classroom action research since it is aimed at

describing instead of improving something. It was in line with what Vanderstoep

and Johnston (2009:35) stated that a descriptive research was just what it sounded

like. It described the attitudes and behaviours observed during the investigation.

This research was conducted based on the following procedures:

1. Selecting the problems2. Constructing the study design 3. Collecting data 4. Making code and analyzing data 5. Interpreting the results (Bailey in Salim, 2007:9)

Each procedure was defined as follows:

3.1.1 Selecting the problems

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

interviewing the head of acceleration program, there was a significant difference

in the academic competence between X.acceleration and regular class. From the

interview with the English teacher, it was known that the acceleration learners

performed more actively than the non acceleration ones during the teaching and

learning process. The X.acceleration learners also achieved higher TOEFL mean

score (465,5) at the end of the semester than the regular class learners did

(366,14). As what mentioned in Chapter I, this research problem was formulated

as: “what Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) applied by the learners of the first

grade acceleration and regular class at SMAN 1 Jember?”

xxxiii

3.1.2 Constructing the study design

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

in this research. Descriptive study meant that the research reported or presented

the data based on the collected instruments without giving any treatment towards

the research subjects.

3.1.3 Collecting data

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

data collected were in forms of questionnaire, interview, and documentation.

Interviews were conducted with the head of acceleration program, the English

teacher, and the ESP teacher. The questionnaire (SILL) was delivered to the

learners of two chosen classes. Afterwards, observations were done in each class.

Lastly, documents were collected from the students’ name lists from the

curriculum staff.

3.1.4 Making code and analyzing data

From the questionnaire and the group interview, codes were made to ease

the data analysis. For example: “A”for memory strategies, “B” for cognitive

strategies, “C” for compensation strategies, “D” for metacognitive strategies, “E”

for affective strategies, “F” for social strategies, “A1” for “I relate new English

words with my previous knowledge”, and so on. (see Appendix 7). The results

from the SILL and observations were then analysed by defining the modes of LLS

used in each class.

3.1.5 Interpreting the results

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

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

formulated research problem. The results and the interpretation were presented in

the following chapter.

3.2 Area Determination Method

Purposive method was used to determine the study area. According to

Arikunto (1996:27) purposive method is a method based on a certain purpose and

reasons. This study was conducted in SMAN 1 Jember, in two classes : first grade

xxxiv

acceleration (X.acceleration) and first grade regular class (X.3) in the second

semester 2009/2010. SMAN 1 Jember was located at 55 Let.Jend. Panjaitan Street

Jember. This school was chosen based on some considerations. First, this school

was the first high school in Jember to be an International Standard School. It

means, in the teaching learning process, English was used as a medium of

instruction. In all subjects, English was used bilingually with Bahasa Indonesia.

Second, this school had two kinds of classes, which one of them was distinctive

among the others. And, above all, the researcher was given permission by the

principal to compile the TOEFL score and students’ identity to support this study.

3.3 Respondent Determination Method

The respondents of this research were the learners of X.acceleration and

X.3 (as the representation of first grade regular class) of SMAN 1 Jember in the

second semester of 2009/2010 academic year. The selection of these two classes

was aimed at answering the research problem about the kind of LLSs which the

learners of the acceleration and regular classes applied. In this study, the subjects

were chosen by purposive method. It means that the respondents were chosen

because they had particular features or characteristics which will enable detailed

exploration of the research objectives. Among all Class X, the teacher chose X.3

randomly since there was no significant difference among other first grade regular

classes in term of their English proficiency. The participants consists of 54 first

grade learners / class X learners (n=50, 21 males and 29 females) of SMAN 1

Jember.

3.4 Data Collection Method

The data used in this research were collected through questionnaire,

observation, and documentation. The detail explanation can be seen bellow.

3.4.1 SILL Questionnaire

Some previous researches used SILL as the instrument with the

respondents of college level EFL and ESL learners. By the assumption that

college level had acquired more complex sentence structures, the researcher

xxxv

modified the SILL items in order to make the participants (first grade senior high

school level) understand the statements. The questionnaire used in this study

consists of two parts: a background questionnaire and the SILL. The background

questionnaire covered the learners’ name, age, gender, the language proficiency,

the language experience, and such (see Appendix 3). The second part consisted of

directions, examples, and SILL items as well as the score spaces. The SILL items

were divided into six parts, from Part A to Part F. Part A, ranges from 1 to 9,

represents memory strategies; Part B, ranged from 10 to 23, reflecting cognitive

strategies; Part C, ranged from 24 to 29 representing compensation strategies; Part

D, ranged from 30 to 38, representing metacognitive strategies; Part E, extended

from 39 to 44, reflecting affective strategies; and the Part F, from 45 to 50, were

for social strategies. At the end of each part, there was a space to sum up. The

learners might sum it themselves or leave it blank preferably.

In the second part, there was a space at the end of each item to put the

participants’ responses. The response was in 1 – 5 scale. It was adapted from

Likert Scale which ranges from “never or almost never true of me” to “always or

almost always of me”. The modified scale can be seen below.

Table 1. The Modified Likert Scale for Learners’ Responses

Scale Likert-scale of learners’ responses Modified scale of

learners’ responses

1 Never or almost never true of me Never

2 Generally not true of me Seldom

3 Somewhat true of me Sometimes

4 Generally true of me Often

5 Always or almost always true of me Always

The learners score their own LLS range use directly by writing the score

(1 to 5) beside each item of questionnaire. For example:

1. I relate new information with my prior knowledge

xxxvi

3

A pilot study was done aiming at checking the learners’ understanding of

the statements in the SILL Questionnaire. It used the original version of SILL

questionnaire (see Appendix 2). Class X.6 had done the questionnaire on February

13, 2010. The pilot study showed some words that were considered as

“unfamiliar” to the participants, such as:

1. “recently” (on the background questionnaire)

2. “prior” (SILL Part A item 1)

3. “flashcards” (SILL Part A item 6)

4. “native” (SILL Part B item 11)

5. “gestures” (SILL Part C item 25)

6. “make it up” (SILL Part C item 27)

The researcher then explained these words to the students in Bahasa Indonesia. In

the modified questionnaire, the unfamiliar words were explained as follows.

1. recently (akhir-akhir ini)

2. prior (sebelumnya/ terdahulu)

3. flashcards (kartu untuk belajar vocabulary)

4. native (penutur asli)

5. gestures (gerakan isyarat)

6. make it up (menjelaskannya dengan kata lain)

3.4.2 Documentation

Documents compiled for this study were dealing with the learners’ name

list. The documents were gathered from curriculum staff. This data was used to

support the background questionnaire given and to calculate the number of total

participant in each class.

3.4.3 Interviews

Beside the questionnaire, interviews were conducted in order to gain more

reliable data. The English teacher, TOEFL teacher, and the curriculum staff were

the interviewees to gain the data. The English teacher and the ESP was asked

about the nature (the characteristics) of the acceleration and regular class learners.

xxxvii

At last, the researcher asked the curriculum staff for name lists of class X.3 and

X.acceleration. The researcher crosschecked them with the data gained from the

background questionnaire.

3.5 Data Analysis Method

Data analysis method was the method to analyze the obtained data. The

data analysis method was presented as follows.

1. Collecting the SILL score from the two classes

2. Coding the LLS and the learners’ name

3. Inputting the learners’ coded name and the SILL score into a

worksheet (for each class)

4. Classifying the SILL score by its parts and defining the modes of

LLS applied by each learner

5. Defining the modes of LLS per parts.

6. Defining the modes of LLS by the class learners.

7. Drawing analysis and conclusion

xxxviii

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results of investigation done for the research as

well as presents the discussion of presented results.

4.1 The Results of Collected Data

The collected data covering interview, documentation, and SILL

questionnaire results provides underlying information of the research subjects.

The results of those data are presented below.

4.1.1 The Results of Interview

In this research, structured interviews were conducted with the English

teacher, the ESP teacher, and the head of acceleration program during the

preliminary study. The head of acceleration program of the school informed the

nature of acceleration and regular class. The interview was done on 5 March 2010

in the vice headmaster’s office and took about 30 minutes. The head of

acceleration program informed that SMAN 1 Jember had two kinds of the first

grade class, they were the regular and acceleration class. All of the acceleration

class learners came from the regular class who fulfilled some requirements, such

as: IQ test and administration selection. He also said that all of the the regular first

grade learners were selected through series of tests and administration steps. He

added that there were two kinds of requirements other than the basic requirements

for registration, such as: copies of National Examination score, graduation papers,

and so forth. According to the head of acceleration class, there were two steps to

enrol the acceleration class as follows. First, the applicants should have their score

report of Mathematics, Natural Science, Economics, and English with minimum

score of 8 in all semesters. Second, the applicants should pass a local test

administered by SMAN 1 Jember. Third, the applicants should have minimum IQ

score of 125. He also stated that the acceleration class was a specific class in

which the learners would have two years of study. The learners had three semester

materials finished in the first year and the next three semester materials finished in

the second year.

The head of acceleration program also informed that since SMAN 1

Jember prepared itself as an International Standard School, the school prepared its

xxxix

learners to be communicative actively both in speaking and writing. To support

this idea, the school added a new subject (ESP: English for Specific Purposes)

which placed as the complementary subject. ESP teacher used TOEFL preparation

as its material.

The second interviewee interviewed on 5 March 2010 in the teacher office

was the English teacher of the first grade. It was also conducted during the break

time. The interview took about 20 minutes. The teacher gave some information

about the nature of first graders in English teaching and learning, the teaching

materials, the teaching method, the difference between the first grade acceleration

and regular class learners, and so forth. He said that the regular classes were

almost having the same level of English achievement that he suggested the

researcher to pick up any class as the research subject. In terms of picking out a

class sample, the teacher chose X.3 as the research subject. According to the

English teacher, he used contextual language teaching. However, he also used

other approaches flexibly. The material he used was various, such as: English

textbooks, a teacher-made modul, and the others. When being asked about the

acceleration learners and the regular class learners in terms of their reception of

material, the teacher told that the acceleration learners were easier to get

understood when they were explained about the materials than the regular

learners.

The third interviewee was the ESP teacher of the school. The interview concerned

in the difference between ESP and English subject in the school and the difference

between first graders in term of their TOEFL achievement. The interview was

conducted in 5 March 2010 and it took 20 minutes. The ESP teacher stated that

ESP was a compulsory subject where learners are focused for succeeding TOEFL

test. It took once a week for each class within two periods (2 x 45 minutes). He

also said that the acceleration learners were more receptive to the materials than

the regular learners. When he explained the materials, the acceleration learners

were more easily get understood and comprehended than regular learners.

4.1.2 The Results of Documentation

xl

Documentation was collected to get the data about the learners’ name and

number. From the namelist given by the curriculum staff, there were 20 learners

in X.acceleration and 34 learners in X.3.

4.1.3 The Results of SILL

SILL questionnaire was conducted once in each class. Before the

questionnaire was given in X.acceleration and X.3, a pilot study using the SILL

questionnaire had been given to X.6 class to test the acceptability of the learners.

As what mentioned in chapter 3, some words were rephrased in order to avoid

learners’ misunderstanding. The questionnaire was given on 16 March 2010 for

X.3 class and on 17 March 2010 for X.acceleration class. This timing was based

on the consideration that in the following month, X.acceleration class would have

semester test.

A. The Results of SILL in X.acceleration

SILL questionnaire was given to X.acceleration class on 17 March 2010. It

took about 45 minutes to complete. The questionnaire session was begun with the

explanation from the researcher about the nature of SILL questionnaire and about

how to do the questionnaire. Then, the questionnaire was spread to the learners

and explain how to fill the questionnaire. The researcher gave an opportunity to

ask questions related to the questionnaire items.

The questionnaire result was then coded into six types of LLS, which are

“A” for memory strategies, “B” for cognitive strategies, “C” for compensatin

strategies, “D” for metacognitive strategies, “E” for affective strategies, and “F”

for social strategies. The LLS was also coded into “A1” representing “I relate new

English words with my previous knowledge” (memory strategies) up to “F50”

representing “I learn English culture” (social strategies). By calculating the mode

score of each strategies and the mode of strategies used, the mostly used LLS of

X.acceleration class and the mostly used LLS in a group of LLS was decided. The

sample of mode analysis was presented below.

Table 2. The Sample of Mode Analysis in X.acceleration

No. Names A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 Mode

1. X12 2 4 2 1 1 5 3 3 2

xli

2. X24 3 1 3 4 1 4 1 5 4

3. X33 3 4 5 2 1 4 2 3 3

........

Mode 3 3 2 4 2 1 3 3 4

Note: A1- A9 = memory strategies’ itemsX1-X20 = the X.acceleration learners’ name1 = never ; 2 = seldom ; 3 = sometimes, 4= often ; 5 = always

Table 2 indicated that the vertical mode showed the mostly appeared range

of memory strategies used by one learner. Meanwhile, the horizontal mode (at the

bottom part of the table) showed the mostly appeared range of one item in

memory strategies. For example:

1) the vertical mode of learner X1 is 2. It means that the learner X1

seldom uses memory strategies

2) the horizontal mode of A1 is 3. It means that strategy A1 (I relate new

English words to my previous knowledge) is sometimes used by the

class.

By applying the above procedure to all strategies, the mostly and the least used

strategies in each part was gained (see Appendix 8 for the complete results). The

mostly used strategy/ies was/were shown by the largest number of range (5 or 4)

and the least used strategy/ies was/were shoen by the smallest number of range (1

or 2). The results of this procedure were presented as follows.

Table 3. The Result of Questionnaire in X.acceleration

Memory strategies

Cognitive strategies

Compensation strategies

Metacognitive strategies

Affective strategies

Social strategies

Code Mode Code Mode Code Mode Code Mode Code Mode Code ModeA1 3 B10 3 C24 4 D30 3 E39 3 F45 5A2 3 B11 3 C25 4 D31 4 E40 4 F46 3A3 2 B12 3 C26 4 D32 4 E41 2 F47 3A4 4 B13 3 C27 3 D33 4 E42 3 F48 3A5 2 B14 3 C28 4 D34 3 E43 1 F49 3A6 1 B15 4 C29 3 D35 3 E44 1 F50 1A7 3 B16 2 D36 4A8 3 B17 3 D37 3A9 4 B18 4 D38 4

B19 2B20 3B21 3

xlii

B22 4B23 3

Mode of part A

3Mode of part B

3Mode of part C

4Mode of part D

4Mode of part E

3Mode of part F

3

From the above table, the highest used of memory strategies was in the range of 4

(often). Strategy A4 and A9 were often used by the learners of X.acceleration. In

other words, “to remember new words, I imagine what it is like” and “I remember

new English words and phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the

board, on a street sign” was often used by the X.acceleration learners. Meanwhile,

the least used strategy was in the range of 1 meaning that it was never used.

Strategy A6 (to remember new words, I use flashcards) was never used by the

X.acceleration learners.

On part B (cognitive strategies), the highest range was 4 (often) while the lowest

range was 2 (seldom). Strategy B15 (I watch English TV programs or watching

English movies), B18 (I read generally first, then read carefully an English text),

and B22 (I try not to translate word for word) were often used by the learners of

X.acceleration. On the other hand, some strategies were seldom used by the

learners, such as: B16 (I read comics/ novels/ stories/ magazines in English) and

B19 (I search words in my own language that are similar to new English words).

Compensation strategies (part C) were sometimes and/or often used by the

learners in which the range of use was 4 for the highest and 3 for the lowest. In

this case, all of the compensation strategies occupied the range.

Metacognitive strategies (part D) were typically sometimes or often used by the

learners as the highest range was 4 and the lowest range was 3. The often used

metacognitive strategies were strategy D31 (I realize my mistakes and that makes

me become better), D32 (I pay attention when someone is speaking English), D36

(I try to read English text as much as possible), D38 (I monitor my progress in in

learning English) and D33 (I try to find out how to be a better learner of English).

Meanwhile, the rest of strategies on part D were sometimes used by the learners.

Later on, the mostly used strategy in part E (affective strategies) was E40

(Although I feel afraid, I try hard to speak English). This strategy was often used

xliii

by the learners (range 4). On the other side, there were two strategies that were

never applied (range 1) namely: E43 (I write diary about my English learning)

and E44 (I talk to someone else about how I feel when learning English).

Lastly, in social strategies, strategy 45 was mostly used while strategy 50 was

least used. The X.acceleration learners always asked the other person to speak

slowly or to repeat their speaking when they didn’t get the point. On the other

hand, the learners never learnt about English culture as it was shown by range 1.

Table 3 also showed the mode of each strategies which ranging from 3

(sometimes) to 4 (often). Compensation and metacognitive strategies were often

applied while memory, cognitive, affective, and social strategies were sometimes

used.

B. The Results of SILL in Class X.3

SILL questionnaire was given in X.3 on 16 March 2010 from 06.45 to

07.30. Of 34 learners, only 28 learners participated in doing the questionnaire. 6

learners were sick at that time. The SILL questionnaire was introduced at the

beginning of the session and afterwards the procedure of how to do the

questionnaire was explained to the learners. Then, SILL was delivered to the

learners and the researcher let the learners ask some questions about the

questionnaire items. After that, the learners filled the questionnaire. It took 45

minutes to finish.

The questionnaire result was then coded into six categories of Oxford’s

LLS which are “A” for memory strategies, “B” for cognitive strategies, “C” for

compensatin strategies, “D” for metacognitive strategies, “E” for affective

strategies, and “F” for social strategies and drawed the mean. The LLS was also

coded into “A1” representing “I relate new English words with my previous

knowledge” (memory strategies) up to “F50” representing “I learn English

culture” (social strategies). By calculating the mode score of each strategies and

the mode of strategies used, the mostly used LLS of X.acceleration class and the

mostly used LLS in a group of LLS was decided. The sample of mode analysis

was presented on table 2 in the previous discussion. Using the same procedure

with the previous class, the results of SILL could be read below.

xliv

Table 3. The Result of Questionnaire in X.3

Memory strategies

Cognitive strategies

Compensation strategies

Metacognitive strategies

Affective strategies

Social strategies

Code Mode Code Mode Code Mode Code Mode Code Mode Code ModeA1 4 B10 3 C24 4 D30 3 E39 4 F45 5A2 3 B11 4 C25 5 D31 4 E40 4 F46 4A3 1 B12 4 C26 3 D32 4 E41 2 F47 3A4 4 B13 4 C27 3 D33 5 E42 3 F48 3A5 2 B14 4 C28 4 D34 3 E43 1 F49 2A6 1 B15 4 C29 5 D35 4 E44 3 F50 3A7 2 B16 2 D36 3A8 3 B17 3 D37 3A9 3 B18 4 D38 3

B19 4B20 3B21 3B22 4B23 4

Mode of part A

4Mode of part B

4Mode of part C

4Mode of part D

5Mode of part E

3Mode of part F

4

Table 3 showed that the always used strategy was metacognitive strategies, while

affective strategies were least used (they were sometimes used). Memory,

cognitive, compensation, and social strategies were often used.

On memory strategies, the most frequently appeared strategies were A1 and A4 in

range 4 meaning that “I relate new words to my previous knowledge” and “to

remember new words, I imagine what it is like” were often applied by the learners

in memorizing the new words. Meanwhile, strategy A3 and A6 placed the lowest

range (1). It indicated that the learners of X.3 never “use pictures to remember

new English words” and “use flashcards to remember new words”.

Different from memory strategies, most of strategies on part B (cognitive) were

often used. There were 9 cognitive strategies that appeared to be often used. (see

Appendix 8). However, one strategy was seldom used which is reading comics/

novels/ stories/ magazines in English.

Later on, some strategies such as: using gestures when can’t say certain

English words (C25) and using a word or phrase that mean the same (C29) were

xlv

always used by the X.3 learners to compensate their lackness in English learning

(shown by range 5). Some other strategies like “If I can’t find the right English

words, I make it up” (C26) and “when reading English texts, I’m not looking at

every words” (C27) were sometimes used as shown by range 3.

Next, on metacognitive strategies, the highest range was 5 and the lowest

was 3 meaning that metacognitive strategies were highly used. Strategy D33 (try

to find out how to be a better learner of English) was always used while the other

strategies (D30, D34, D36, D37, and D38) were sometimes used.

Dealing with affective strategies, learners of X.3 often tried to relax

whenever feeling afraid of using English (E39) and trying hard to speak English

although they feel afraid (E40). However, they never told other people about their

feeling in English learning (E43).

At last, the learners always applied the strategy F45 by asking the other

person to speak more slowly or to repeat what he/she was saying when they didn’t

get the meaning. Contrastly, asking questions in English (F49) was seldom used

by X.3 learners.

To conclude the result of SILL questionnaire in X.3, metacognitive was

mostly (always) used by the learners while affective strategies was least used

(sometimes).

4.2 The Discussion

The discussion session mentions the interpretation collected data analyzed

at the previous sub chapter. It covers the discussion of interview results and

documentation results as presented as follows.

4.2.1 The Discussion of Interview Results

The interview with the head of acceleration program eindicated that the

acceleration learners were “selected” learners who had been through series of tests

and fulfilled some requirements. Later on, the learners would finish their study in

two years, on eyear faster than regular learners. It was implicitely defining that the

acceleration learners were supposed to be more intelligent than regular learners

xlvi

especially in major subjects like Mathematics, Natural Science (IPA), Economics,

and English. The interview with the English teacher and the ESP teacher

supported this idea. Both teachers stated that during the English teaching and

learning, the acceleration learners were more receptive toward materials given. In

sum, acceleration learners were acclaimed as “more proficient” than other

learners.

4.2.2 The Discussion of SILL Results

The SILL results reflected that the learners applied all six types of LLS

during their English learning. In X.acceleration class, compensation strategies and

metacognitive were more frequently used than the other strategies. This was

contradictive with Kato’s (2005:255) findings which mentioned that more

proficient learners used metacognitive, cognitive, and social strategies more often

than other strategies. It means that the acceleration learners tended to make up

their knowledge impairment and managing their own learning (doing

metacognitive strategies) more frequently than remembering new English words

(memory strategies), tryin to make sense their learning (cognitive), controlling

their moods (affective strategies) and interacting with other (social strategies). The

learners tried to cover their limitation of knowledge in order to keep the

communication going on. Acceleration learners preferred to compensate their

lackness in their language learning by guessing the meaning of new words, using

gestures to explain the words they couldn’t say, making up words, and so on. On

the other hand, the learners least frequently remember new vocabularies. They

prefer to guess the meaning of new words instead of remembering their meaning

one by one. Whenever they found unfamiliar words, they prefer to look into their

dictionary or ask the teacher. The less use of memory strategy is in line with

Kato’s (2005:256) findings which stated that learners with memory strategies

were not successful in English proficiency.

On the other hand, X.3 learners tended to use metacognitive strategies

more frequently than the other strategies. In this case, the learners tried to find out

how to be better learners of English. It implied that the learners preferably

xlvii

managed their English learning to make their learning more effective. The

learners of X.3 class applied the other strategies in a quite frequent scale (often)

meaning that the learners tried to orchestrate those strategies whenever they learn

English. However, the X.3 learners least used affective strategies meaning that

they did not manage their emotions, feelings and mood quite frequent.

In memory strategies, strategy A4 (to remember new English words,

imagine what it is like) were the most favorite strategy of the two classes. This

strategy was often applied when the learner had listening activity in which they

imagine what the speaker was saying. When facing reading text, learners of the

two classes preferred to use their dictionary than imagining the words.

Meanwhile, the learners of both classes were similarly never using flashcards to

remember the new words. This might be caused by the facts that flashcards were

not familiar to the learners. Flashcards were never used nor introduced during the

lesson. Perharps, the learners never used flashcards in their English learning in

their previous schools since the typical classes in Jember were big classes that

might not be manageable if the teacher used flashcards to the learners.

Regarding the cognitive strategies, the most familiar strategies to the

learners of both classes were strategy B15, B18 and B22. In other words, the

learners often watch English TV programs or watching English movies, I read

generally first, then read carefully an English text, and I try not to translate word

for word. Either for pleasure or for learning purpose, watching English movies or

TV programs were applied by the learners to get more exposure of English

besides the English lesson at school. The latter two strategies were familiar to the

learners since they were taught in reading activity since the learners were in Junior

High School. Such strategies were some reading strategies that were commonly

taught by the teacher in preparing the learners to anticipate long English texts.

Meanwhile, B16 (I read comics/ novels/ stories/ magazines in English) was

seldom used by the learners of both classes. This phenomenon might be caused by

the high price of English comics/ novels/ stories or magazines. The learners tried

to access the English reading material freely from the internet.

xlviii

In compensation strategies, C25 was the most familiar strategy in the two

classes in which the learners used gestures when they could not say certain

English words. On the other hand, C27 (when reading English texts, I’m not

looking at every words) was similarly sometimes used by the learners of both

classes. The learners applied these strategies in favor to compensate their

limitation in speaking and reading.

Some metacognitive strategies were similarly often used by the learners of

the two classes, like “I try to find out how to be a better learner of English”

meaning that the learners were finding out any ways or strategies that can make

their English learning better. However, the learners less use some strategies like: I

try to use English as often as possible, I plan my schedule so I have enough time

to learn English, and I have clear targets for improving my English skills whereas

these strategies are very important to be autonomous learners. Considering the

less use, teacher could train the learners to activate those strategies more

frequently so that they could improve their learning English more significantly.

Dealing with affective strategies, most of the learners tried hard to speak

English although they feel afraid. This was encouraged by the learners’ intrinsic

motivation as well as the teacher encouragement to be more brave to speak

English regardless their errors. In contrast, the learners never wrote diary about

their learning English. Although this strategy was proven as effective as a tool to

control emotion and to evaluate some difficulties in learning English, writing

diary was unfamiliar for the learners since they were not accustomed to. Writing

diary might be not practical for the learners as it required quite long time. Lastly,

in social strategies, “f I don’t understand what people say in English, I ask them to

speak more slowly or to say it again” was mostly used by the learners as it had

been familiar to the learners and had been used for a long time. Regarding social

strategies, teacher should introduce more strategies to the learners, such as:

learning English culture, asking questions in English, asking English speaker to

correct their English and so on in order to enrich the learners’ LLSs.

xlix

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion

Having discussed the results of the research, it could be concluded that the mostly

often used strategies in X.acceleration were compensation strategies, such as:

guessing the meaning of new words and using gestures to explain the words they

couldn’t say. The other strategies such as: memory strategies, cognitive strategies,

metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies were sometimes

used. In X.3, metacognitive strategies especially “trying to find out how to be

better learners” were always used while memory, cognitive, compensation, and

social strategies were often used and the affective strategies were sometimes used.

5.2 SuggestionBased on the results and discussion of the research that have been

mentioned in conclusion above, some suggestions were given to the English

teacher, the learners, and the future researchers.

The English teacher was suggested to reinforce the learners’ LLS by

introducing the types of LLS and how to integrate them in their English learning.

It was based on the idea that LLS could be taught. He was also suggested to

explicitely train the learners to apply effective strategies to improve all English

skills. Besides, the teacher was suggested to create some various activities so that

the learners would be better involved and active during the class.

The learners were suggested to learn about the various types of LLS which

were applicable to their English learning. They were noticed the types of LLS

when they filled the SILL questionnaire thus they were hoped to be aware of their

own learning strategies and hoped to improve it to be better. Learners, helped by

the English teacher, might practice themselves in using LLS for all English skills

and components.

Finally, the researcher suggested the future researchers to study further

based on this study findings. The results of this study could be used as a reference

for an upcoming comparative study comparing the use of LLS in two different

classes: more proficient class and less proficient class. Later on, a correlational

l

study could be conducted in correlating some variables, such as: the LLS choice

and gender, the LLS choice and English proficiency, and so forth.

li

lii