I.
INTRODUCTION
This research was intended to analyze whether there was the dominant learning strategy used by field independent student in speaking English and to see whether there were correlations between learning strategies of field independent student with their speaking score. This chapter includes the background of the problem, the formulation of problem, the objectives, the uses of the research, the scope of
the research and the definition of terms.
1.1Background of the Problem
Generally, there are not two students had same ability in achieving the required goal although they receive same treatment from the lecturer. There are different ability among the students. In the real life, the researcher found there were the level of speaking ability among the students. It could happen caused by there are many factors which influence the result of
students’ mark. This statement is supported by the psychologist expert Brown (1980) who
said that student succes in second language learning could not be separated from individual psychological factors.
He stated that psychological factors could influence the student’s ability in teaching learning process.
Each student had a different cognitive style which could be one of aspect that influence the
students’ speaking ability. The researcher assumed that there must be
the significant contrastive characteristic between both such cognitive styles, mainly about those way of thinking of processing the information.
Those factors could affect on how fast students were able to learn speaking English. These cognitive characteristics are field dependent and field independent. Brown (2000) defined field independence as the ability to perceive a particular relevant item in a field of distracting items. He defined field dependent as
“the tendency to be dependent‟ on the total field so that the parts embedded within
the field were not easily perceived.
The oral skill could be problematic for foreign language learners. One of
the potential sources of these problems in speaking test ability referred to differences in cognitive characteristics of the test takers. One of these cognitive characteristics was field independent. It was considered as one of the source of problem in speaking ability, it needed
to be examined carefully in order to find some remedies, both preventing test bias that would lessen the validity of speaking test as a measurement of second language proficiency and also helping learners improve their speaking achievement in the target language.
Field independent and field dependent dealt with the amount of psychological differentiation experienced. Differentiated cognitive styles were more complexly organized. The
relationships between cognitive style and the environment were more elaborate. Witkin and Goodenough (1981) described the differentiation process as one of the creation of inner boundaries between the inner core of the self and
the perceptual or psychological field and it is a more differentiated process. According to Witkin and Goodenough (1981) field dependent learners are more socially oriented than field independent learners.
They pay more attention to social clues, they like to be with others and they seek learning and vocational experiences that put them in contact with people. Brodzinsky (1985) stated that field dependent children perform less well on formal operations tasks than field independent children do. Other researchers support this, for example: children, according to Witkin and Goodenough (1981), are more field dependent than are adults. There was a general
movement toward field independent across development, but there were also great individual differences. Those who develop more rapidly toward field independent also develop speaking competence in cognitive restructuring. Interestingly evidence is presented which indicated that there is genetic selection of field independent subjects in primitive settings and that more are field dependent as the culture grows and becomes more modern.
Brown (1980) observed a conflicting hypothesis could be advanced with reference to L2 learning on the bases on this finding. First, it could be hypothesized that the field independent person is the better L2 learner as he would be better able to focus on the relevance valuable in languange lesson or conversation than a field dependent person.
because succesful FLA would be determined by how well the learner could communicate with speaker on the target language.
Brown indicated that field independent correlated quite highly with result of language test. From those theoritical assumption, the researcher assumed that
the student were belong to field independent student had a good quality in their speaking ability. This assumption was developed into another prediction about what the learning strategies which dominantly were used by the field independent students in achieving better speaking ability. Learning strategies were assumed being related to the student’s speaking ability. Specifically, it needed to analyze about speaking ability which are mastered by field independent students. Learning strategies referred to the behaviour the students used in learning language. Wenden (1987 : 6) has stated that learner strategies actually eganged into learn and regulate the learning of second language. It means that field independent student can be having a good strategies in learning speaking ability. It must be considered that good learner is strongly potential in achieving better speaking achievement.
The background had explained that it was important to know the learning strategies used by the students from field independent group.
1.2Formulation of the Problem
Based on the background, the researcher formulated the problem as follows :
a. What most learning strategies were used by Field Independent students in speaking ability?
b. Was there any significant correlation between Field Independent student’s speaking ability and their learning strategies?
The objectives of this research were to analyze there are the dominant learning strategies used by Field Independent student in speaking English and to see there were correlation between learning strategies of Field Independent student with their speaking score.
1.4Uses of the Research
The uses of this research were to :
a. Suggest that there are significant learning strategies which support Field Independent student in learning English speaking ability better.
b. See the correlation between Field Independent’s speaking ability and their learning strategies.
1.5Scope of the Research
This research focused on field independent as one of cognitive styles in language learning. This research was conducted at SMP N 2 Bandar Lampung
while the subject of the research are samples of student taken from each class of Grade 8.2 and 8.3. All of them had been grouped in two group. The group were named field
independent and field dependent students. Field independent group was analyzed according to their result of speaking score. This research focused on
the mostly learning strategy which was used by field independent students who were good in speaking score. The researcher classified the learning strategies based on some categories of
Rubin’s theory. Learning Strategies consist of memory, cognitive, compensation,
metacognitive, affective, and social strategy. Having finished classifying student language learning strategies, the researcher analyzed
1.6Definition of Term
There are some terms used in this research which need to be defined clearly, so there was a similar scope of thinking or perception toward some certain terms of this topic of research. Some of those terms are below :
1. Field independent is a particular cognitive style which characterize as focusing spotlight on data, distinguishing and focusing deeply on some specific aspect of the material being learned.
2. Field dependent is the tendency to be "dependent" on the total field so that
the parts embedded within the field are not easily perceived, though that total field is perceived most clearly as a unified whole .
3. Speaking ability is certain ability of learning English Skill orally. This ability cover some aspect such as its grammar, pronounciation, logical thinking, fluency in saying English words or English sentence.
4. Learning strategies are operations used by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage or retrieval of information, according to one familiar definition. It means that that learning strategies are behaviours or language actions which learners use to make language learning more succesful and enjoyable
5. Cognitive style is attitudes, choices or strategy that firmly determines the typical ways of someone in accepting, remembering, thinking and problem solving. It is clear for us that every individual have their own way in constructing the things which are seen,
remembered, and thought by him/her.
6. Learning styleis an important factor in several areas including students’ academic
achievement, how students learn and teachers teach, and student-teacher interaction.
I.
FRAME OF THE THEORY
This chapter discusses some concepts of theories related to this research, such as Psychological characteristics contribute to succesful foreign language acquisition, cognitive style in EFL, characteristic of field independent, speaking in EFL, Speaking ability in EFL, learning strategies in speaking, and Rubin’s learning strategies theory.
1.1Psychological Characteristics Contribute to Succesful Foreign Language Acquisition
Since language is used in social exchanges, the feelings, attitudes and motivations of learners in relation to the target language itself, to the speakers of language and to
the culture affectted how learners responded to input to which they are exposed.
Corder (1967) stated that the language input on which they based their hypothesis interacts with on learners’ affective and social characteristics. In a sense, it was
the factors that determine how much of input was. The language which
the learner exposed to become intake language was used to develop the L2 system. Corder called the affective variables as personal characteristic of learner including cognitive and learning strategies.
a problem seem to hinge on a ratheramophous link between personality and cognition. This link was reffered to cognitive style. In relation to foreign language learning, cognitive style of individual influenced his succes in foreign langauge learning. To support his theory, Brown (1980) said that in the enermous task of learning of foreign languange one which so deeply involves affective factors, a study of cognitive style brings a very important variable to the forefront. Such style could contribute siginificantly to the contruction of a unified theory of foreign language acquisition.
1.2Concept of Cognitive Style in English as A Foreign Language
Slamet (1991:162) says that cognitive style is attitudes, choices or strategy that firmly determines the typical ways of someone in accepting, remembering, thinking and problem solving. It was clear for us that every individual have their own way in constructing the things which are seen, remembered, and thought by him/her.
The differences among individuals constantly in constructing and treating the information and experiences are called cognitive style.
According to Ausabel (1968 : 170) cognitive style is self-confident and enduring individual differences in cognitive organization and functioning. The term refers to individual
differences in general principles of cognitive organization. It also refers to various self
consistent idiosyncratic tendencies which are not reflective of human cognitive functioning in general, it is difficult to argue that cognitive style is strictly cognitive manner. It really
mediates between emotion and cognition, for example, reflective cognition style invariably grows out of reflective personality or reflective mood. An impulsive cognitive style, on the other hand, usually arises out of
he or she internalizes his or her total environment. Since the internalization process is not strictly cognitive, we find the physical, affective, and vognitive domain merge in cognitive style. Considering the statement above, it is obvious that affective and cognitive domain are the factor of cognitive style.
This statement was supported by Witkins (1979) who said that cognitive style is
the cognitive characteristic modes of functioning that was revealed throughout our perceptual and intellectual activities in highly consistent and pervasive way.
Vernon (1979) explained what cognitive style is. cognitive style is a super ordinate construct which is involved in many cognitive operations , and which accounts for individual
differences in a variety of cognitive, perceptual, and personality variables. The explanation about cognitive style was added by Messick (1976:14) who said that cognitive style
represents a person’s typical modes of perceiving, remembering, thinking, and problem
solving.
According to Syah (1995) cognitive style is one of human psychological fields that consist of mental behaviour which is related to understanding, considering, information sorting,
language learning, Brown (1980) stated that there are three major cognitive variations, namely, type of learning, stategies of learning, and style of learning.
Nasution (1987) described style of learning as consistent style done by a student in grasping stimulus or information, remembering, thinking, and problem solving.
In learning style, Brown (1980) said that there are five cognitive styles that are relevant to second language learning. There are cognitive style which are focused on this research are field independence and field dependence. Relation to this research,
the difference of cognitive style, that is field independent and field dependent, causes differences of students speaking ability, because they are different in perceiving, remembering, thinking, and problem solving.
1.3Characteristics of Field Independent Students
Schumani (1976) said that a field independent learners is one who perceives a visual field and detect sub pattern within the field. This definition was explained explicitly by Brown (1977) who pointed out that the field independent person is generally thought to be more analitical, precise, and affectively independent.
Nasution (1987) made a list of field independent stucents characteristics to help us grasp the characteristic of field independent student. He said that field independent students are less influenced by circumstances and the educational system in past(a), educated to be
independent and to control his or her action (b), doest not care of
The researcher could see above that the expert did not separate the definition of field independent learners in affective domain from cognitive domain. Klausmeier (1985:136) classified field independence in affective domain and cognitive domain. In addition, he focused deeperly on the characteristics of field independent students in accordance to foreign language learning. He said that in cognitive domain, students from field independent group have high analytical ability in solving problem. Analytical ability here meant the ability of dividing point of the problem and finding the relationship between the points, so that the answer of the problem is found. Because of having analytic ability, students in this group tend to solve
a problem quickly.
In affective domain, field independent students more generally more competitive, self respect, self confident, and prefer self study to come in a group discussion. Since they have self respect, it could be said that they would be succes in their study.
In relation to the research of students speaking ability which was held in
Based on the statement above, The researcher could see that field independent students tended to be succesful in secong langauge lerning in classroom. It meant that in this situation the students were led by the teacher how to practise speaking in foreign language.
1.4Concept of Speaking in English as A Foreign Language
Tarigan (1985) said that speaking is the ability to utter sound of articulation of words for expressing as well as sending thought, ideas, and fellings. Rivers (1970 : 162 ) stated that through speaking, one can express his ideas, emotions, attentions, reactions, to other person and situation, and influence other person.
From the statement, the researcher could see that the ability to express one’s thought, emotions, feelings, etc
According to Murcia (1978 : 91) speaking is the primary element of language. Regarding with foreign language learning, it is obvious that speaking is very- important. Therefore, those who study English as a foreign language must be able to speak in the language, at least in the simple form. The researcher had determined taking the data of research in SMP N 2 Bandar Lampung. That school was chosen due to its benefit as one of Pioneering
1.5Concept of Speaking Ability in EFL
In English as foreign language testing, speaking ability is the way of students show their speaking ability in the context of some aspects which could be assessed involving grammar, pronunciation, diction, fluency etc. Brown (2004: 140) defined speaking as a productive skill that can be directly and empirically observed; those observations are invariably colored by the accuracy and effectiveness of a test takers listening skill, which necessarily compromises the reliability and validity of an oral production test. From those statements above, the researcher can conclude that speaking is an activity involving 2 or more people in which the participants are both the listeners and the speakers having to act what they listen and make their contribution at high speed. In addition, related to speaking ability,
Tarigan (1981:15) states that speaking ability is a skill to communicate a speech articulation or to speak a talk for expressing an idea and a message. Lado (1961: 240) points out that speaking ability is described as the ability to report acts or situation,
in precise words, or the ability to converse or to express a sequence of ideas fluently.
It can be concluded that speaking ability is a skill, which is communicating speech sound for expressing and conveying a messages or ideas. Lado (1989: 66) says that: language teaching successfully may be examined by analyzing a series of lesson plans over a period of time which can tell us the procedures of presentation,
the predominance of skills and the frequency of reviews, how much by the method, what the teacher has omitted or added to text aim, include a lesson plan.
Lado (1977: 200) says also that either four or five components are generally recognized in analysis of speech process. They are: a) Pronunciation (including
the segmental features-vowels and consonant and the stress and intonation/ pattern),
1.6Relation Between Field Independent and Speaking Ability
Someone needed to master exercise, drills, and other analytical oral and written activities. Considering the characteristic of field independent, it was generally thought to be more analytical, precise, and affectively independent. Brown (1977 ) speculated that field independent may be more important in the classroom setting where learning is measured. Meanwhile, field dependent person has
low analytical ability. Yet, Brown (1977 ) suggested that field independent may be more beneficial if he comes to tutored second language learning because succesful second language learning was determined by how well the learner can communicate with speaker of the target language.
Meanwhile, field independent person could be well structured speaking ability due to their competence in analyzing unrelated discrete-point into overall context they occur. It is based on Bachman (1990) who stated that the persons with a high degree of field independence would perform well on discrete point test in which the items are unrelated to each other and to the overall context in which they occur.
On the other hand, persons with low field independence might be expected to perform well on integrative tests such as speaking test in which they are required to process the test in a global manner.
Field independent students basically have a global ability in learning second language. Based on Genesee and Hamayan (1980) field independence,
in particular, has been found to correlate positively and significantly with L2 learning in school settings where the target language was taught formally, in their study of first grade English speaking students of French immersion program
in Canada. It was reported significant and positive correlations between FI and both general ability in French and French listening comprehension skills.
1.7Learner Strategies in Speaking
Learning strategy is the technique of learning used by the learners in gaining knowledge. It is needed by the learners since by using strategy, it would improve their skills in language and also can make some plans about what they should do next. Therefore, learning strategy is the tactics in understanding and achieving a knowledge. Rigney (1978) pointed out that learning strategies are operations used by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage or
retrieval of information, according to one familiar definition. It meant that learning strategies are behaviours or language actions which learners use to make language learning more succesful and enjoyable.
Wenden (1987 : 26) stated that learning strategies refer to the language learning behaviours learners actually engaged into learn and regulate the learning of second or foreign language. The language learning behaviours are called strategies. He also pointed out that a learner who used learning strategy become a more effective learner. In addition, Candlin (1987 : 271) described some steps in defining a learning strategy, they are:
1. Learner can choose how to use resources
3. By choosing and prioritizing, learners set their own learning goals.
4. Learner may plan what their learning strategies should be and change them if they are not succesful
From the previous description it could be obviously stated that by using proper strategies, student seemed to know what they were doing, what they were supposed to do in the process of learning. They have made steps or systematic frameworks to anticipate any problem they probably faced. By this way, the learning is likey to be more effective and systematic.
Rubin (1975: 45 ) stated there are seven strategies used by good language learners in learning language skills, they are :
a. The good language learner is a willing and accurate guesser. A good guesser is one who gathers and stores information in an efficient manner. The good guesser uses all the clues, which the setting offers him and thus is able to narrow down from the meaning and intent of the communication might be. In this sense, he is carrying over into his second language behaviours something that all of us do in or first language interactions. Guessing
emphasizes on the what we know about
the social relationship between the researcher, the setting, the event, the channels and all of the other parameters.
b. The good language has strong drive to communicate or to learn from communication. He really to do many things to get his message across. He would practise sending the
message by writing letter, diary, note in English. Having this strong motivation to communicate, the good learner uses whatever knowledge
he has to get his message across.
d. The good language learner is prepared to attend to form. He was constantly looking to pattern in the language. He had practise in attending to the important formal feature of language.
e. The good languge learner practises, he may practise writing sentences,paragraph, imitaste the sound of native speaker, listening to what the native said etc.
He usually took advantages of every opportunity to write in class as well as in home. f. The good language learner always monitor his development. That is constantly attending
to how well is he writing being received and whether it has made standards he has learnt. g. The good language learners attends to meaning how knows that in order to understand the
message, it is not sufficient to pay attention to the grammar of
the language or to the surface from of writing. He attended to the context of writing act and attended to the rules of speaking and the mood of the writing act
On the other hand, Hammond (1983) stated that there are some strategies students might employ in learning writing and they would become better writing learners
if they always want to know new thing (a), would be accurate observers (b),
can respect accurate information (c), always try to learn writing with specific purpose (d) continually questions their sentences, asking themselves whether they have been specific enough (e), be confident with their own voice (f) always try to so avoid researchers’ block (g), try to use various useful methods of organization (h), begin to write from the first draft attending only to facts, ideas, and structure, saving matters of expression, spelling and punctuation for revision (i), be confident in their ability to revise their own writing (j).
The researchers quoted from Asrori the evidences that let our brainstorming to Oxford’s
strategy systems be easier. The Oxford’s classifaction of learning strategies was introduced
first by O’malley (1985) and Rigney (1978). He stated that in an attempt to produce a
classification scheme with mutually exclusive categories, he developed their own identifying learning strategies which they divided into three categories. They are metacognitive,
cognitive and social. In the following years, this categories was developed more by Rubin in to indirect strategies and direct strategies. Indirect strategies was classified in to
metacognitive, social and affective strategies. Meanwhile, direct strategies was developed in to memory strategies, cognitive strategies and compensative strategies.
Based on the previous research by Asrori (2000: 26) finding showed good learning strategies used by good languge learners, they were :
1. Good learners practise as often as possible especially after they got new material from their teacher. This type is called as metacognitive strategy.
2. They have high motivation and self confidence. This type is belonging to affective strategy.
3. They enjoy studying alone or together with their friends. It refers to social strategy.
4. They tend to memorize new structure or vocabularies they just have. It refers to memory strategy.
5. They like to try practicing new patterns of structure by writing it directly in the sentences or short paragraph. It refers to cognitive strategy.
6. They like to guess the words they do not know. It is called as compensantory strategy.
Asrori’s research finding (2000: 32) also showed us that poor learners lack strategies in
a. Poor learners do less English practise. They seldom write anything in English. They lack metacognitive strategy
b. Most of them do not have high motivation in learning English. They do not like English. They lack affective strategy.
c. Some poor learners do not like studying together. They lack social strategy
d. Some poor learner do not like to memorize the subject they just have. They lack memory strategy.
e. Only few poor learners like to practise new pattern of structure by writing it directly in paragraph. They lack cognitive strategy.
f. Most of the poor learner do not like to guess the words they do not know. They lack compensantory strategy.
Diagram 2.1 Oxfords’ Learning Strategies
Generally, Rubin’s learning strategies are divided into two major classes of learning strategies, they are :
1.8.1 Direct Strategies
Directstrategies dealing with the new language is like the performer in stage play, working with the language itself in variety of specific tasks and situations. The direct class is
strategies for understanding and producing the language and compensation strategies for using the language despite knowledge gaps.
The performer work closely with the director for the best possible outcome.
1.8.1.1Memory Strategies
Memory strategies are the startegies of whivh the learners manage their own learning process by Creating Mental Lingkages, Applying Images and Sound, Reviewing Well and Employing Action.
a. Creating Mental Linkage
The process involve in this step are :
1. Grouping, such as gathering the words into the same classification
2. Associating, the students are trying to review their English words into sentences. 3. Placing new words into context, the students use the new English words into sentences.
b. Applying Images and Sounds
This process is divided into four strategies, they are :
2. Semantic mapping using keywords, the students use some words to remember the words they want to learn
3. Representing sound in memory. Remembering new language information according to its sound. This is a broad strategy that can use any number of technique, all of which create a meaningful sound based association between the new material and already known material. For instance, you can link a target language with other words in any language that sound like the target language
c. Reviewing Well
The category just contains one strategy, structured reviewing. Looking at new target language information once is not enough; it must be reviewed in order to be remembered. Reviewing in carefully speed intervals, this strategy sometimes is called as “spiralling” because the learners keep spiralling back to what has already been learnt at the same time. This strategy might start with a review 10 minutes after initial learning, then 20 minutes later, an hour or two later, a day or two day, a week and so on.
d. Employing Action
The two strategies in this set, using physical response or sensation and using mechanical tricks, both involve some kind of meaningful movement or action. These will appeal to learners who enjoy the kinesthetic or tactile modes of learning of learning.
1. Using Physical Response or sensation, physical acting out a new expression
(e.g. going to the door) or meaningfully relating a new expression to a physical feeling or sensation).
target language information. Examples are writing words in cards or moving cards from one stack to another when a word is learnt, and putting different types of materials in separate sections of a language learning notebook.
1.8.1.2Cognitive Strategies
Cognitive strategies are essential in learning a new language. Such strategies are varied a lot, ranging from repeating to analyzing expression to summarizing. With all their variety, cognitive strategies are unified by a common function, manipulating or transformation of the target language by the learners.
Diagram 2.3 Cognitive Strategies
Language learners commonly use analysing and reasoning strategies. Many learners, especially adults, tend to reason out of the new language. They construct formal models in their minds based on the analysis and comparison, create general rules, and revise those rules when the new information is available. This process is extremely valuable. The process beyond this strategy are: Reasoning Deductively, Analysing Expression, Analysing Contrastively, Translating, and Transferring. The final strategy included in cognitive
strategies is Creating Structure for Input and Output. The following three strategies are ways to create structure, which is necessary for both comprehension and production in the new language.
1. Taking Notes, writing down the main idea or specific points. This strategy can involve raw notes, or it can compromise a more systematic from of note taking such as the shopping list format, semantic map or the standadrd outline form.
2. Summarizing, making a summary or abstract of a longer passage.
3. Highlighting, using a variety of emaphasis technique ( such as underlining, starring, or color coding) to focus on important information in a passage.
Diagram 2.4 Compensatory Strategies
Compensantory strategy enables learners to use the new language for either comprehension or production despite limitation in knowledge. Compensatory strategies are intended to make up for inadequate reportoire grammar and especially vocabulary. Ten comprehension
strategies exist, clustered into two sets : (a) guessing intelegently in listening and (b) reading overcoming limitations in speaking and writing.
Guessing strategies, sometimes called “ interfencing” involve using a wide variety of clues
linguistic and non linguistic to guess the meaning when the learner does not know the words. Good language learner when confronted with unknown expression, make educated guesses. On the other hand, less adept language learners often panic, tune out, or the dog eared dictionary and try to look up every unfamiliar word harmful responses which impede progress toward proficiency.
Beginners are not only ones who employ guessing. Advanced learners and even native speakers use guessing when they have not heard something well enough.
1.8.2 Indirect Strategies
Indirect strategiesfor general management of learning can ben likened to the director of the play. This class is made up of metacognitive strategies for coordinating the learning process, affective strategies for regulating emotions and social strategies for learning with others. The director serves a host of functions, like focusing, organizing, guiding, checking, correcting, choaching, encouraging, and cheering the performer works cooperatively with other actor in the play. The director is an internal guide to the performer and it means that indirect strategies are beyond the direct strategies.
Metacognitive means beyond, beside or with the cognitive. Therefore, metacognitive strategies are actions which go beyond purely cognitive devices, and which provide a way for learners to coordinate their own learning process. Metacognitive strategies include three strategies sets : Centering Your Learning, Arranging and Planning Your Learning and Evaluating Your Learning.
Diagram 2.5 Metacognitive strategies
Metacognitive strategies are essential for succesful language learning. Language learners are often overwhelmed by too much “ newness” unfamiliar vocabulary, confusing rules different writing system, seemingly inexiplicable social customs, and non traditional instructional approaches. With all this novelty, any learners lose their focus, which can be only regained by the conscious use of metacognitive strategies such as paying attention and over
viewing/linking with already familiar material.
take responsibility to seek as many practice as possible, usually outside of the classroom. Even in a second language situation, ripe with opportunities for practice, learners must actively search for and take advantage of these possibilities.
Sometimes language learners have problems in realistically monitoring these errors. Students may become traumatized when they made errors. This failing is to realize that they would undoubtly make them and should therefore try to learn from them. Student may also
underrate their proficiency. The academic grading system which generally rewards discrete point of ruled learning rather than communicative competence, make confusion about overall progress worse. Using the metacognitive strategies of self monitoring and self evaluating can ameliorate these problems unrealistically monitoring of errors and inadequate evaluation of progress, can be ameliorated by using the metacognitive strategies of self monitoring and self evaluating.
1.8.2.2Affective Strategies
The term of affective refers to emotions, attitudes, motivations, and values. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the affective factors influencing language learning. Language learners can gain controll over these factors through affective strategies exist : lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself, and taking your emotional temperature. Brown (1994) stated
that the affective domain is impossible to describe within the definable limits. It spreads out like a fine sput net, encompassing such concepts as self esteem, attitudes, motivation, anxiety, culture shock, inhibition, risk taking and tolerance for ambiguity. The affective side of the learners is probably one of
On the other hand, positive emotions could make language learning far more effective and enjoyable. Teacher could exert a tremendous influence over the emotional atmosphere of the classroom in three different ways : by changing the social structure of the classroom to give students more responsibility, by providing increased amounts of naturalistically
communication and by teaching learners to use affective strategies. Self esteem is one of primary affective elements. It is a self element of worth or value, on feeling of interaction
effectively with one’s own environment.
Diagram 2.6 Affective Strategies
The sense of efficacy that underlies self esteem is reflected in attitude (mental disposition, beliefs, or opinion) which influence the learning motivation in any area of life and especially in language learning. Working together among other friends can influence language learning perfomance itself, including both language proficiency and proficiency in specific language skills, such as listening comprehension, reading comprehension and oral production.
1.8.2.3Social Strategies
Language is a form of social behaviour. It is mean of communication, and then
people and appropriate social strategies are very important in this process. Three sets of social strategies. Each set comprising two specific strategies are included in three social strategies. They are asking questions, cooperating with others, and empathizing with others.
Diagram 2.7 Social Strategies
One of the most basic social interactions is asking questions, an action from which learners get closer to the intended meaning and their understanding. It also helps learners encourage
their conversations partner’s response to the learner’s question indicates interest and
involvement. Moreover, the conversation partner’s response to the learner’s questions
indicates whether the question itself was understood, thus providing indirect feedback about
the learner’s production skills. The content of questions is important. One social strategy
concerns asking questions for clarification or verification. Other related social strategy is to ask for correction, which is especially useful in the classroom. The classroom setting provides much more overt correction than do natural, informal social settings.
This is also like what Rubin (1987) stated that learning theory would suggest that it is the best to build on what the students know or better still, to help them what they know. Since each
knowledge. This knowledge includes about what they know their own learning process, about what they know about language (language and any second or foreign language) and what they know about the communication process.
Moreover, Candlin (1987:133 ) pointed out that learner who uses learning strategy become more effective learner. This means that by using learner strategy, learners would be able to learn more effectively.
In addition, Hossenfeld (1978) and Wenden ( 1986 ) in Candlin ( 987:71) gave some steps in defining a learning strategy, they are :
- Learners can choose how to use resources.
- Learners prioritize the aspects of language that they want to learn - By choosing and prioritizing, learners set their own learning goals
- Learners may plan what their learning strategies should be and change them if they are not succesful.
Learning strategy is the operation used by the learner in gaining their succes in learning. Oxford (1989:236 ) has found six broad groups of strategy system used by good language learners, they are metacognitive, affective, social, memory, cogntive and compensantory. The example are good language learners manage their own larning process through metacognitive strategies, such as paying attention, self- evaluating, and self-monitoring (1), they control their emotion attitude through affective strategies, such anxiety reduction and
knowledge limitation through compensantory strategies, like guessing meanings intelligently and using synonyms or others production tricks when
the precise expression is unknown. The learners could involved in those strategies system and in what group of strategy they are.
1.7Hypothesis
To see any correlation in this research, the researcher formulated hypothesis as follows :
H0 : There is no significant correlation between mostly learning strategies of field independent student and student’s speaking ability.
I.
RESEARCH METHOD
In this research, the researcher intended to analyze the mostly learning strategy used by field independent student in speaking English and to see correlation between
students’s learning strategies and their speaking score. This chapter includes
the research design, source of data, data collecting technique, validity and reliability, normality of data, research procedure and data analysis.
1.1Research Design
This research was designed to use descriptive analysis and correlation quantitative research. Firstly, the descriptive analysis was employed to analyze the result both of cognitive style questionnaire and learning strategies questionnaire.
Then, the correlation research was applied to see the correlation between students’ learning strategies and their speaking score. In this research, the researcher classified student into field independent and field dependent group through cognitive style questionnaire. The researcher considered field independent student according to
student’s learning strategies they used in speaking by using the data of learning
2
focus on the essential gist in language lesson or conversation than field dependent person.
This theory is also supported by Hansen and Standfield (1989), they correlated score on speaking test with scores on linguistic, integrative, and communication measures. All correlation are positively significant for field independent. Meanwhile,
Brown also found that at the untutored setting of language learning, field dependent student may be more benefecial bacause succesful foreign language acquisition was determined by how well the learner could communicate with speaker on target language (Brown, 1977).
Brown indicates that field dependent correlated quite highly with a test of language proficiency. Brown’s theory also could be applied to speaking ability.
Generally the steps of research as following : making the beginning research to determine the group of student belong to field independent student (1), grouping student in field dependent and field independent by implementing cognitive style questionaire (2), organizing the second research using learning strategies
questionaire in order to check out the most learning style used by field independent student (3), organizing a certain test in order to check their speaking ability
Actually, the researcher used the certain formula of the research, it was correlation quantitative research. The formula was shown as below:
X
Y
X = learning strategy of field independent Y = speaking score of field independent student
3
The research data was taken from the students of the second year of SMP N 2 Bandar Lampung. Since the researcher considered that the second year of SMP N 2 Bandar Lampung had relatively high foundation in language components such as structure and vocabularies. The subjects of this research were the second year students belong to field independent group.
1.3Data Collecting Technique
In collecting the data, the researcher used some ways as follows :
1. speaking test
Speaking test was given to the students who were belong to field independent group. It was for specifying the good language learners in speaking lesson as the subject of this research. The researcher used oral test to get student speaking score.
The researcher had determined the appropriate material preferred to school
curriculum. This research was hold in SMP N 2 Bandar Lampung which considered as Pioneering International School (RSBI). The researcher had composed speaking test to conduct students making short speech based on the guiding question that had been made by the researcher. The guiding question was preferred with
4
following day, they must perform it in front of class individually. This performance
was the simple way of the researcher collecting the data of student’s speaking score.
2. questionnaire
Questionnaire was given to identify the student’s cognitive style and their learning strategies. It was intended to get perfect data about their strategy system used in learning speaking. The researcher prepared some statements according to Rubin’s strategy systems. This questionnaire consisted of 30 items, which were divided into 6 groups ; metacognitive, affective , social, memory, cognitive, and compensantory.
To jugde the respodent’s answer, the researcher used Likert scale where
the researcher gave four alternative responses for each statement. They are strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree. They were scored 4, 3, 2 and 1
relatively. The researcher had determined the qualification where the students were judged using the certain strategy. The determination of this questionnaire was:
1. 15-20 means that the learners used the strategy. 2. 4-14 means that the learners never used the strategy.
The standard test consisted of some statement was given to field independent
students in order to classify into learning strategies classification, when they were in learning speaking. This test classified in more detail according to their preference of learning something. The categories covered metacognitive, affective, social,
memory, cognitive, compensantory.
1.4Validity of Data
5
a high validity provided that that instrument could measure exactly what we measured for getting the data. To measure the validity of data in this research, the researcher used content validity dan construct validity.
a. Content validity
Patton ( 1988 : 166 ) pointed out that objectivity aspect the scientific truth. Content validity focused on whole item of questionaire in speaking test instrument. In order to fulfill the requirement of content validity, the researcher saw the indicator of all items in questionaire then analyze what all instruments have represented a certain material which would be measured. The validity of instruments is high even if it has covered all required material in the supposed curriculum. Content validity could be related to the material in the school curricullum in which the research was taken place.
b. Construct validity
Contruct validity is needed in the research which it has two instrumenst or more for collecting data. The instruments must have some indicator to measure one certain aspect. If there is certain instrument which have some aspect, then each aspect has some indicator, so the similar indicator should be support each other positively. Shohamy (1985: 74) stated that construct validity concern with whether the item was actually in line with the theory of what it meant to know the language.
��=� −
�
DP = Discrimination Power
U = Upper Class L = Lower Class
N = the number student of both group Shohamy (1985:79)
6
Since the researcher gave the speaking test for specifying field independent students, so the reliability of the speaking test was very important to jugde the quality of the test. To measure the reliability of the instrumen, the researcher use the Cronbach alpha formula, as follow :
� =[� − ] [ −∑��
� ]
Explanation :`
r11 = reliability coeficient
K = the number of instrument item
∑σb2 = the number of item varian
σ1 2 = total of variant Suharsimi Arikunto (2006 : 196 )
Setiyadi (2001) stated that Cronbach Alpha formula was used to reveal the reliability instrument, the higher alpha, the more reliable the items of the questionnaire.
Table 3.1 Criteria of Reliability Suharsimi Arikunto (2006 : 276 )
1.6 Normality of Student’s Speaking Score
7
the data, the normality test should be done firstly. Hatch and Farhady (1982:64) said that normality test is an idealized model which can be used to dealing with natural behavior. This test was used to measure whether the data in the class is normally distributed or not. In this research, the computation of normality was analyzed by using Kolmogorov-Smirnov SPSS.16.
1.7Research Procedure
In conducting the research, the researcher used some procedures as follows :
1. Taking the students speaking test
The researchertook their speaking score test to support the other data, gained by questionnaire. That speaking score taken from their speaking test, conducted by teacher of their class before the this research actually was going on. In this research, the researcher took the speaking score from their speaking ability in class.
Harris (1974) said that there were four aspects that were evaluated; they are fluency, grammar, pronunciation and structure. Each component had certain weight score. The description was as follow:
a. Fluency (A) was scored 20% from total student mark that represent how good students utterances in speaking.
b. Grammar (B) was scored 30% from total student mark that represent the quality
of sentence’s structure is spoken by each student.
8
d. Pronunciation (D) was scored 20% from total student that represent the quality of how good each student pronounce English word correctly and rightly.
Total score of speaking ability is resulted by count up all score of speaking test aspect. The formula was as E = A + B + C + D
Description:
a. E = total score/ speaking score
b. A = Fluency score / 20% of Fluency score c. B = grammar score / 30% of grammar score d. C = structure score / 30% of gesture score
e. D = pronunciation score / 20% of pronunciation score
2. Grouping the students
The researcher needed to group all student into required goup that reflect the sample of the research. In order to group some students in to a required group, it was done as follow :
a. making the beginning questionaire to determine the group of student belong to field independent student or field dependen and then grouping them into field dependent and field independent
b. organizing the second test in order to check their speaking ability.
3. Classifying student based on Rubin’s learning strategies
Giving questionaire was to check out the mostly learning strategies used by field independent student in speaking English . This questionnaire included questions
about student’s learning strategies. This questionaire was designed to find out what
9
This questionaire classified field independent student into six categories based on
Rubin’s strategy system.
1.8Data Analysis
In analyzing the data from the cognitive style questionnaire, learning strategies questionnaire and speaking test, the researcher used SPSS.16 in computing each data result. The steps of analyzing the data could be described as below:
a. Scoring each student response in answering questions or statements in the questionnaire. Each item was scored used Likert scale.
b. Tabulating data of scoring items from the questionnaires. The example of tabulation table could be seen in appendix 1. The researcher measured the inter-item reliability by computing each score of inter-item in questionnaire toward total score of all item in same questionnaire. The researcher also measured the validity of each item in the questionnaire by using the tabulating data of all item score. c. Making certain classification toward the research subject. In the cognitive style
questionnaire, the student’s score was computed using SPSS.16 in order to
correlate their score with total score of all items in such questionnaire.
d. Data analysis is done by tabulating the result of the test given by the researcher. This data was statistically analyzed by using statistical computerization
i.e. Spearman correlation of SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) version 16.0 for Windows to see whether there were a significant correlation
between the student’s learning strategies and their speaking ability, in which
V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter provides the conclusion and suggestions drawn from the description and the discussion of the result presented in chapter four in relation to the
problems formulated in the first chapter
5.1Conclusion
Based on the research of data analysis and discussion, the researcher made some conclusions as follows:
1. The researcher found that field independent student grade RSBI 8.2 and RSBI 8.3 SMP N 2 Bandar Lampung mostly use compensatory strategy in
performing speaking. There are 25 students out of 36 students in field independent group use that strategy. The researcher predicts that student in researched class like to guess the words they do not know. It is one of way in
compensantory strategy. This strategy proves that this way can upgrade their achievement in speaking skill. The other way of compensatory strategy are switching to the mother tongue , getting help , using mime or gesture , avoiding communication partially or totally , adjusting or approximating , coining words and using a circumlucotion or synonim. Some that way must help student effectively to attain better speaking achievement than others. 2. There is significant correlation between learning strategy which mostly used
45
variables from the significant two tailed of analysis Pearson Product Moment
correlation. The significance was Sig. 2 tailed <
α (0.05), it is 0.018 by
the correlation coefficient 0.460.
5.2Suggestion
The researcher had found the new recommendation for most teachers in order to guide their student learning speaking through proper learning strategies. Though there is no single learning strategy that could be applied exactly by student then make them automatically reach better achievement in speaking. All learning strategies must be developed in balance to support each other. Generally, the researcher proposes some suggestion for English teacher as follows:
1. The English teacher were recommended they should pay attention on student’s cognitive style that was field independent and field dependent in teaching speaking since there was different characteristic between field independent student and field dependent in their achievement, certainly speaking achievement.
2. Teacher could encourage their students to apply compensatory strategy since this strategy could effectively help student to learn speaking. Teacher could support student to use the other strategies even if that strategies is commonly helpful.
46
combined with other strategies. Compensatory strategies must be one of good strategy that should be applied by student even teacher. This has been proved in this research. Although, there is no single strategy that can conduct
maximally if it is never combined with other strategy.
ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF FIELD INDEPENDENT STUDENTS SPEAKING ABILITY AND THEIR LEARNING STRATEGIES
AT THE SECOND GRADE OF SMP N 2 BANDAR LAMPUNG
By
Rahmat Nurudin
The objectives of this research were to analyze there were the mostly learning strategies used by Field Independent student in speaking English and to see there were correlations between student’s learning strategies and their speaking
achievement.
This research employed descriptive analysis and quantitative correlation research. The data were collected from the questionnaires and speaking test. The subjects of research were 23 students of class RSBI 8.2 and 17 students of class RSBI 8.3 of SMP 2 Bandar Lampung 2011-2012 academic year. Questionnaire was used to obtain data of field independent and field dependent students and student’s learning strategies.
The result of the research showed that the students of second grade of SMP N 2 Bandar Lampung mostly used compensatory strategy in speaking. There were 25 students (73%) of 34 students in field independent group applied compensatory strategy. Meanwhile, there were 16 students (47%) used memory strategy,
17 students (50%) used cognitive strategy, 16 students (47%) applied metacognitive strategy, 20 students (58%) applied affective strategy and 23 students (67%) applied social strategy. The coefficient correlation between compensatory strategies with the student’s speaking ability is 0.460,
Sig (2tailed) = 0.018, (p > 0.05).
CURRICULUM VITAE
Rahmat Nurudin was born in Seputih Banyak, Central Lampung on
May 5th, 1988. He is the first son of Jarwadi and Sarmi. He has one younger brother and one sister, named Dwi Nanang Saputra and Indah Purwaningsih. At the age of six years, he studied in elementary school, SD N 1 Sri Basuki, Seputih Banyak, and graduated in 2000. He continued his study to
SLTP 1 Tanjung Harapan, Seputih Banyak and graduated from Junior High School in 2004. He entered SMA Negeri 1 Seputih Banyak and graduated in 2006. One year later, he studied in English Education Study Program of Language and Arts Department at the Teacher Training and Education Faculty in Lampung University.
The researcher was an activist in some campus organizations. He was elected as General Chief of HMJ Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Lampung University,
2009-2010 periods. Then, in the following year, he was elected as Student Governor of BEM FKIP Lampung University for 2010-2011 periods.
REFERENCES
Asrori, A. 2000. An Analysis of Learning Strategy in Writing Based on the
Oxford’s Strategy System in Class 2.1 of SMU N 1 Bandar Lampung.
(Unpublished Script). Bandar Lampung : Lampung University Press. Arikunto, S. 2006. Prosedur Penelitian. Jakarta : Rineka Cipta Press.
Ausubel, D. 1968. Educational Psychology, A Cognitive View. New York : Rinehart and Winston Press.
Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. London : Oxford University Press.
Barley, T., and Li Liu. 2010.Scoring Second Language Speaking Performance: Exactness or Fuzziness?. Faculty of Education, Hongkong : The Chinese University of Hong Kong press.
Candlin, C. N. 1961. 1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Cambridge Prentice Hall, Inc : University Press.
Corder, S.P. 1967. International Review of Applied Linguistic. London : Longman.
Dornyei. 1995. Communication Strategies. School of Foreign Languages, Qingdao University of Science and Technology : Qingdao press. Genesee, F., and Hamayan, E. 1980. Applied Psycholinguistics, Individual
Differences in Second Language Learning. International journal.p. 95-110.
Hansen, and Stanfield, C.1981. Language Learning. International Journal. p. 31. Harris, D. P. 1979. Testing English as Second Language. New York : Mc. Graw
Inc.
Hatch, and Farhady. 1982. Research Design and Statistic for Applied Linguistic. London : New Bury Home Production.
76
Heaton. 1975. Writing English Language Tests. New York : Longman Group press.
Jin, T., Mak, B., and Zhou, P. 2011. Confidence Scoring of Speaking
Performance: How does Fuzziness Become Exact? : Language Testing. Advance online publication (27 Maret 2012).
Kim, H. J. 2010. Investigating the Construct Validity of A Speaking Performance
Test.English Language Institute. University of Michigan Press.
Klausmeier, H. 1985. Education Psychology. New York : Herper and Row Press. McNamara, T. F. 1996. Measuring Second Language Performance. London :
Longman.
Nasution, S. 1987. Berbagai Pendekatan dalam Proses Belajar dan Mengajar. Jakarta : PT. Bina Aksara.
Naiman, N., and Fröhlich, M. 1978. The Good Language Learner. Research in Education Series 7. Toronto : Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
O’Malley. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. 1989. Use of Language Learning Strategies A Synthesis of Studies with Implication for Strategy Training. Great Britain : Pergamon Press Plc.
Reid, J. M. 1998. Undestanding Learning Style in the Second Languge Clasroom. Eaglewood cliffs Regent : New Jersey Press.
Rivers, W.1983. Speaking in Many Tongues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rigney, J.W.1978. Learning Strategies: A theoretical Perspective. New York : Academic Press.
Rosita, G. 1997. A Comparative Study between Field Independent and Field Dependent in Speaking Achievement at English Study Program of Lampung University.Bandar Lampung : Lampung University Press.
Rubin, J. 1975. What the “ Good language Learners” Can Teach Us. Tesol Quarterly Vol. 9. No 1.
77
Setiadi, Ag. B. 2003. Teaching English as A Foreign Language. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University Press.
Soozandehfar. 2011. Language in India, Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow. India: India Press.
Sugiyono. 2010. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung : Perc.Alfabeta. Stern, H. H. 1978. The Good Language Learner. Research in Education Series 7.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suparman, U. 2010. Psycholinguistic :The Theory of Language Acquisition. . Bandung : Perc.Arfino Raya.
Syah, M.1995. Psikologi Pendidikan. Bandung : Rosda Karya Baru.
Universitas Lampung. 2007. Pedoman Penulisan Karya Ilmiah Universitas Lampung. Bandar Lampung : Lampung University Press.
Wenden, A. 1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning. English Language Teaching. United Kingdom : Prentice Hall International.
Witkin, D.A., and Goodenough. 1971. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Departement Of Linguistic Science : University Of Reading Press.
Zhang. 1997. Communication Strategies and Foreign Language Learning,
xii
3.2 Source of Data ... 37
3.4 Validity of Data ... 38
3.5 Reliability of Data ... 40
3.6 Normality of Student’s Speaking Score ... 40
3.7 Research Procedure ... 41
3.8 Data Analysis ... 43
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Result of the Research ... 44
4.1.1 Result of the Cognitive Style Test ... 45
4.1.2 Result of Learning Strategies Test ... 49
4.1.3 Result of Speaking Achievement Test ... 54
4.1.4 Hypothesis Testing ... 57
4.2 Discussions ... 61
4.2.1 Questionnaire ... 61
4.2.1.1 Cognitive Style Questionnaire ... 61
4.2.1.1 Learning Strategies Qustionnaire ... 63
4.2.2 Compensantory Strategy and the Student’s Speaking Achievement ... 66
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions ... 72
5.2 Suggestions ... 73
REFERENCES ... 75
