ENGLISH SPEAKING PERFORMANCE OF BILINGUAL AND
Pai (2005) who previously conducted a case study at Mumbai city is in line with the Angelis theory.
The subject of his study are the bi/multilingual students who can speak Marathi/Hindi/ English as their official language and many major languages spoken in Mumbai such as Urdu, Gujarati, Tamil, and so forth. He explains that the metalinguistic knowledge of bilinguals helps them to separate sound and meaning or name and object. They also develop better insight in objective and arbitrary property of language. In addition, he explains that multilingual help to develop not only metalinguistic skills but also to develop metacognitive skills. At a very early age children learn to express the same thought with different codes in different languages. At societal level they understand the cultural differences leading to different norms to be observed in interpersonal relations in different discourse situations. Thus, it teaches them to live harmoniously with others in the society. On the other words, it can be said that multilingual students are better than bilingual students in developing metacognitive and metalinguistic skills.
Trysiani (2013) who conducted a research dealing with reading comprehension performance of bilingual and multilingual students of SMPN 2 Laren Lamongan strengthens the Angelis’ theory and Pai’s finding. The participants of her research are the Junior High School students who have Javanese prior language. The intensive and extensive readings were tested to the students. The result of those reading comprehension test shown that multilingual students are better than bilingual students as well in achieving reading comprehension performance.
However, Bialystok (2006) argues that bilingual students who can speak English and French or English and Chinese are not always better than monolingual students. Implicitly, it can be said that multilingual students are not always better than bilingual students as well. Hence, the researcher assumes that multilingual students are not always better than bilingual students in acquiring English as a foreign language in Indonesia. It is because Indonesia students have different languages compare with the languages used by bi/multilnguals in other countries. Different prior languages will influence the successful of second language acquisition (Ellis, 1997).
METHOD
In this study, a quantitative research method in the form of non-experimental study has been conducted. In this non-experimental quantitative research, the researcher identified variables and may look for relationships among them but does not manipulate the variables (Ary, Jacobs,& Sorensen, 2010).
The variables in this study are bilingual and multilingual students at SMAN 2 Jember. In addition, in this non-experimental research, the researcher used correlational design because the researcher gathered data from individuals on two or more variables and then the researcher determined whether or not the variables are related (correlated). The degree of relationship was expressed as a numeric index called the coefficient of correlation. In this study, correlational research investigated the relationship between the speaking performances produced bilingual and multilingual students of SMAN 2 Jember and their language pattern. In addition, the researcher investigated the relationship between the students’ English speaking performance and some factors which affect it such as their parents’ education level.
Techniques of Collecting Data
In this study, instead of numbers which was analyzed as the main data, the researcher also used some techniques to collect the data. Those are questionnaire, interview, observation and document analysis.
Techniques of Analyzing Data
Since there are four research questions in the chapter one, the technique in analyzing data was divided based on those research questions. First, the data obtained by the researcher for research question number 1 is the statement. It is obtained through the questionnaire given to the students to know the prior language of bilingual and multilingual students. Then, the result of the questionnaire was analyzed by using cross tabulation provided in SPSS.
Second, in the research question number 2, to know whether or not bilingual students with Javanese prior language pattern score differently, the researcher used observation to obtain the data.
The researcher recorded the students’ speaking performance by using audio recorder as the resource of the data. This way is also used for research question number 3 (to know whether or not multilingual students with Javanese prior language pattern score differently) and research question number 4 (to know whether or not bilingual students is better than multilingual students).
Furthermore, in displaying the data, the researcher used Independent Samples T-Test and ANOVA provided in SPSS (Statistical Package of Social Science). It was used to analyze the students’ English speaking performance score. The function of using Independent Samples T-Test in analyzing the speaking score is to know whether or not the English speaking performance score of bilingual students
significantly different from multilingual students. While the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to determine whether there are any significant differences between the means of three or more independent (unrelated) groups.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The prior language(s) of bilingual and multilingual students of SMAN 2 Jember
Based on the table of all languages cross tabulation, the researcher found the students’ language pattern. There were 22 bilingual students with two different language patterns. Those are Javanese Indonesia (JI) and Indonesia Javanese (IJ). Bilingual students who belong to JI language pattern are 10 students. Besides, there are 12 bilingual students who belong to IJ language pattern. Those who belong to JI language pattern indicate that before they learn English as their foreign language, the first language they acquire is Javanese. By the time goes, they can acquire Bahasa Indonesia as their second language. Otherwise, bilingual students who belong to IJ language pattern indicate that they acquire Bahasa Indonesia as their first language and Javanese as their second language.
In addition, there are five language patterns found for 9 multilingual students. Those are Madurese–Indonesian-Javanese (MIJ), Indonesian–Javanese-Madurese (IJM), Indonesian–Madurese-Javanese (IMJ), Indonesian–Indonesian–Madurese-Javanese–Madurese-other language (IJMO), and Indonesia–Indonesian–Madurese-Javanese-other language (IJO). Total numbers of multilingual students are 9 respondents. They are divided into 5 groups.
First, 2 students are categorized to IJO language pattern. It means that they acquire Bahasa Indonesia as their first language, Javanese as their second language, and other local languages (Banjar and Oseng) as their third language. Second, 1 student belongs to IJMO language pattern which means he acquires four languages before they learn English. The sequences of language pattern he has are Bahasa Indonesia, Javanese, Madurese, and Arabic. Third, 1 student belongs to IMJ language pattern. It can be said that prior languages he acquire before he learn English are Bahasa Indonesia, Madurese, and Javanese. Fourth, there are 2 students who are categorized to IJM language pattern. It shows that they acquire Bahasa Indonesia as their first language, Javanese as their second language, and Madurese as their third language. Fifth, the last language pattern found for multilingual students is MIJ. The members of this group are 3 students. The first language they acquire is Madurese. By the time goes, they acquire Bahasa Indonesia as their second language and Javanese as their third language.
English Speaking Performance of Bilingual Students
Based on the output of independent sample t-test, the first part which should be analyzed was Levene's Test for Equality of Variances to know whether or not the data was homogenous. It could be seen that F=0.241 (P=0.629). Since the score of p was higher than 0.05, it means that there was no difference variance between JI students and IJ students. On the other words, the English speaking scores of JI and IJ students were homogenous. Second, if the data was homogenous or higher than 0.05, the researcher should read the Sig. (2tailed) of the first row in output T-test table (equal variance assumed) and ignored the second row. The Sig. (2tailed) is 0.006. If the sig (2tailed) is less than 0.05, it means that there was significant difference between the students with IJ language pattern and the students with JI language pattern.
English Speaking Performance of Multilingual Students
There are some findings relate to the English s peaking performance of multilingual students in this study. First, mean score of multilingual students who were categorized as IMJ and MIJ language pattern group is 70 while mean score of multilingual students who belong to IJM, IJO, and IJMO language pattern group is 65.6. It means that multilingual students who acquire Madurese as their first or second language perform better than those who acquire Javanese as their first or second language. Second, multilingual students who acquire Javanese as their prior language got higher score in pronunciation and comprehension than those who acquire Madurese as their prior language. However, in other speaking aspects such as vocabulary, grammar, and fluency, multilingual students with Madurese prior language perform better than multilingual students with Javanese prior language. Third, based on the result of the computation statically by using One Way ANOVA, it could be seen that there was no significant mean difference among multilingual students.
English Speaking Performance of Bilingual and Multilingual Students
The output of Independent Sample T-Test proves that there are 22 bilingual students and 9 multilingual students observed in this research. The first finding was the mean score of multilingual students is 67.55 while the mean score of bilingual students is 66.36. It means that the mean score of multilingual students was higher than mean score of bilingual students. Second, multilingual students did
not perform better than bilingual students in all aspects.It was proved by the score on each aspects analyzed by the researcher. Multilingual students got higher score on three aspects. Those are pronunciation, fluency, and comprehension. However, on other aspects of speaking such as vocabulary and grammar, bilingual students perform better than multilingual students.
Furthermore, according to the output of independent sample t-test above, the value of Levene's Test for Equality of Variances was F=2.330 (P=0.138). Since the value of p was higher than 0.05, it means that there was no difference variance between bilingual and multilingual students. On the other words, the English speaking scores of bilingual and multilingual were homogenous. Then, if the data was homogenous or higher than 0.05, the researcher should read the Sig. (2 tailed) of the first row in output T-test table (equal variance assumed) and ignored the second row. The Sig.(2tailed) was 0.811. If the sig (2 tailed) was higher than 0.05, it means that there was no significant difference between bilingual and multilingual students in their English speaking performance.
Discussion
First, according to the result of questionnaire and interview, there are some prior languages spoken by bilingual and multilingual. It is in line with Musgrave (2011) who explains that a very large number of languages are spoken within its territory by Indonesian people. Most of bilingual and multilingual students in this research can speak Javanese and Madurese. Even, some of them spoke by using Bahasa Jemberan which derives from the combination between Javanese and Madurese. As a result, Javanese spoken by Jember people is different from Javanese spoken by people in Solo. This phenomenon is supported by Hasanah, Sofyan, and S (2015) who explain that Jember is a city where there is a merger of two cultures between Javanese and Madurese which makes the language in Jember is slightly interesting.
However, instead of Javanese and Madurese, there are other prior languages found in this study.
Those are Osing, Banjar, and Arabic. People mobilization leads the existence of other languages in Jember. A multilingual student who can speak Osing as one of his prior languages lived in Banyuwangi since he was child. However, their family decided to move to Jember since she was in Junior High School because they thought that Jember is better than Banyuwangi in economic sector. In addition, another local language found in this research is Banjar. It was found from a multilingual student whom his father is Borneo person. Since he was 4 years old, he lived in Jember. It is why he can speak Javanese and Madurese fluently although he was born in Borneo. Furthermore, there was a multilingual student who can speak Arabic because she comes from Arabic family.
Second, in answering the second research question about English speaking performance of bilingual students with different language patterns, it is found that there are 2 groups of bilingual students.
The first group is those who have JI language pattern and the rest of them have IJ language pattern. It was found that bilingual students who have IJ language pattern got higher mean score than those who have Javanese language pattern. Based on the output of independent sample t-test, there was a significant difference between those 2 groups. Even, there is no previous research which observed the ability among bilingual students in acquiring English especially in English speaking performance. Hence, the analysis’ result in the second research question is a new finding.
Third, there are some important points noted and explained in answering the third research question about English speaking performance among multilingual students. Multilingual students who have Madurese prior language perform better than those who have Javanese language. They got good score in three aspects of speaking such as vocabulary, grammar, and fluency. In addition, multilingual students who have Javanese prior language got good score in pronunciation and comprehension.
However, the output of ANOVA showed that there was no significant difference a mong multilingual students with Javanese and Madurese prior language.
Fourth, in the last research question about the English speaking performance of bilingual and multilingual students, it was found that mean score of multilingual students is higher than mean score of bilingual students. It means that multilingual students are better than bilingual students in English speaking performance. It is supported by Angelis (2007, p.130) explains that multilinguals are better at foreign language achievement than bilinguals. However, based on the result of the output of Independent Sample T-Test, it was found that English speaking performance’s score of bilingual and multilingual students was homogenous. In other words, there was no significant difference between bilingual and multilingual students in their English extensive speaking although the mean score of multilingual students was higher than mean score of bilingual students.
Furthermore, there are some factors which affect the result of the students’ English speaking performance. Some points were noted based on the questionnaire given to the students after they perform their English performance. First, from 32 bilingual and multilingual students observed in this
research, 24 students stated that they were anxious in performing their English extensive speaking. On the other words, there were only 8 students who did not feel anxious. As a result, their anxiety influenced their speaking performance.
Second, there are correlation between parents’ education level and their speaking ability. Based on the result of ANOVA analysis provided in SPSS, it could be seen that there were 17 students whose both their father and mother graduated from SMA, 3 students whose parents’ education level graduated from SMA and S1, 5 students whose parents’ education level graduated from S1 and SMA, 5 students whose both father and mother graduated from S1, and 1 student whose father graduated from S1 and her mother graduated from S1. According to that analysis, it was found that the higher parents’ education level, the higher score got by the students. Furthermore, this finding was supported by Bialystock’s statement (2006) who states that social background and parents education levels influence the children language acquisition.
Third, the students’ prior experiences in developing their speaking ability influenced their English speaking performance. Based on the result of the interview and questionnaire, there were 3 students who join English club since they were in Elementary School. All of them often join English speech contest.
Their English speaking performance’s score in this research were higher than those who did not join English club and English speech contest.
Fourth, by comparing the result of English speaking performance’s score, it was found that among 6 female students got the score ≥ 80 with the score 96 as the highest score. While the highest score of male students were only 76. This finding is in line with Caroll and Sapon’s (1959) who explain that woman are good at second language learning. Unfortunately, although the highest speaking score in this study was woman, the mean score of man were higher than the mean score of woman. It means that, generally, the man’s mean score was higher than the woman’s mean score.
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
First, there are 7 language patterns in this study. Two language patterns were found for bilingual students and 5 language patterns were found for multilingual students. Second, the result of the data analysis of bilingual students showed that that there was significant difference between bilingual students with different language pattern. Otherwise, there was no significant difference of English speaking performance among multilingual students with different language pattern. In other words, it could be said that the English speaking performance among multilingual students was same. In addition, the result of the data analysis of English speaking performance of bilingual and multilingual students showed that there was no significant difference between bilingual and multilingual students in their English speaking performance. Furthermore, there were some factors influenced the students’ English speaking performance in this study. Those were the students’ anxiety, parents’ education level, the students’ prior experiences in developing their speaking ability.
Furthermore, to complete the study, the researcher has some suggestions for the English teachers, parents, and the future researcher. First, it has been shown that English speaking performance of bilingual students with IJ language pattern was better than those who have JI language pattern. Thus, the English teacher should give different treatment to them in teaching speaking ability. Second, since the parents’ education level influenced the students’ English speaking performance in this study, the parents should continue their education level in order that they can give a better encouragement for their children to enhance their children’s English speaking ability.
REFERENCES
Angelis, G.D. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Ary, D.,Jacobs, L.C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Canada:
Nelson Education, Ltd.
Bialystok, E. (2006). Second language acquisition and bilingualism at an early age and the impact on early cognitive development. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. Canada.
Ellis, R. (1997). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hasanah, E., Sofyan, A., & S, A.E.R. (2015). Analisis komparatif antara bahasa Jawa dialek Jember dan bahasa Jawa. Standar Publika Budaya, 1(1), 15.
Musgrave, S. (2011). Language shift and language maintenance in Indonesia.
Pai, P. (2005). Multilingualism, multiculturalism and education: Case study of Mumbai city, Somerville.
Trysiani, E. (2013). Reading comprehension performance of bilingual and multilingual students of SMPN 2 Laren Lamongan. (Graduate Thesis, Surabaya State University, Surabaya).
Zacharias, N. T. (2012). EFL students’ understanding of their multilingual English identities. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(2), 12.