i A SKRIPSI
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By
Aulia Adelina
20120540065
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT LANGUAGE EDUCATION FACULTY
iv
DEDICATION
Hereby, I would like to dedicate my masterwork to special people whom always inspire me to always enrich my knowledge everytime:
MRS. SUYANTI
“ THE GREATEST SUPERWOMAN, MY BELOVED MOTHER ” &
PRIMA KURNIAWAN
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful Alhamdulillah,
Praise to Allah SWT, the Lord and the Creator of the world who has blessed and given the strength to the researcher in completing Skripsi. Upon our Prophet Muhammad SAW, sholawat and salam, peace, and blessings be upon him, who has showed the truth light of life.
Through this occasion, I would like to express my greatest honor and gratitude to my outstanding supervisor, Mrs. Sri Rejeki Murtiningsih, Ph. D who has always willing to give her best expert guidance, knowledge, insight and especially spread her time for giving consultation, guidance and patience to me. Without any helps, critiques, encouragements, and support from her, this paper will never be completed successfully.
vi
Special thanks for the support, the love, the spirit, the prayer, the patience, and the effort that I received from the strongest woman in the world, my beloved mother. Her royal struggle and force bring me into this level as a Sarjana. The first day I came and learn in the class, it would never be forgotten and will always derive me to always feel hungry to learn more and more again.
I am very grateful to express great thankful to my family member, my father, my beautiful sisters, Nur Annafi and Fitri Diah Widiastuti, my brother in law, and my little cute nephews (Nazwa, Zein and little Mihrima) who always give spirit, support, laugh, and cheers to me in all day.
I’d like to heartily express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to my loyal lovely fiancé Prima Kurniawan who are very lovely encouraging, motivated me, empowered me to complete this thesis, and encouraged me with kind moral support during the finishing skripsi. His royal force helps me face my tear and fear in which never could be counted, and so thanks to always say that “your victory is exactly the way you respect every single thing of yourself, your power, your capability and you just need to trust it. Keep foolish and keep digging yourself. ”
I count myself very fortunate to have Mrs. Lia as my language consultant and I’d like to thank her for patience, support and contribution in proofreading my
vii MOTTO
** No matter what score or mark you have that given from people, because the one that knows your own real capability is just you. Yourself is your best expert/judge of your own whole life. **
viii
Table of Contents
Cover………...i
Approval Sheet………...ii
Declaration Authorship………...iii
Dedication………...iv
Acknowledgment ………....v
Motto………...vii
Table of Contents………..…....viii
Abstract………..….xi Chapter I: Introduction……….1
Research Background………...1
Problem Identification………..4
Problem Limitation………..6
Problem Formulation………...6
Research Objectives………...7
Research Hypothesis………7
Research Significance………...8
Chapter II: Literature Review………...9
Language Learning Strategies………..9
Speaking………...16
Speaking Strategies………16
ix
Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)………...18
The Correlation on Speaking Strategies Used by EFL Learners and Their Speaking Proficiency………...17
Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)……….18
The Correlation on Speaking Strategies Used and Learners’ Speaking Proficiency……….18
Studies on Speaking Strategies Used……….19
Conceptual Framework………...22
Chapter III: Methodology………..23
Research Design………...23
Population of the Research……….………....23
Sample of the Research………..24
Instruments of the Research………...………....25
Data Collection Techniques………...27
Validity and Reliability………..28
Data Analysis………...29
Chapter IV Results and Discussion………31
Results………31
Discussion………...39
Chapter V Conclusions and Recommendations……….45
Conclusions………45
Recommendations………..47
x
Appendices………...57
List of Tables Table 3.1 Item Categories………..25
Table 3.2 The Scales of Questionnaire………..26
Table 3.3 The Speaking Rubrics………27
Table 3.4 Reliability Statistic……….29
Table 4.1 Mean of Frequency Use Strategies………32
Table 4.2 Frequency of Using Metacognitive Strategies………...33
Table 4.3 Frequency of Using Cognitive Strategies………..33
Table 4.4 Frequency of Using Compensation Strategies………...34
Table 4.5 Frequency of Using Memory Strategies………35
Table 4.6 Frequency of Using Affective Strategies………...35
Table 4.7 Frequency of Using Social Strategies………...….36
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistic of Speaking Proficiency………36
Table 4.9 Categories of Speaking Score………37
Table 4.10 Coefficient Correlation Interpretation……….38
xi ABSTRACT
Speaking is one of the skills which demonstrates the goal of success in learning English both as second and foreign language. Speaking strategies are defined as devices employed by learners of a second or foreign language when confronted with obstacles or difficulties of communicating the target language. This study aims to explore, (1) the most frequent speaking strategies used by English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners, (2) learners’ speaking proficiency, and (3) the correlation on the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL learners and their speaking proficiency. The method used was descriptive correlational research in which data were collected from 52 EFL learners of EED UMY batch 2015. The data were gathered by distributing the speaking strategies questionnaire modified from Moriam Quadir (2014), and collecting the speaking score from the lecturer of Listening and Speaking for Academic Purpose course. The findings revealed that the speaking strategies that were most frequently used by EFL learners were social strategies (mean value = 4.23), the learners’ speaking proficiency was in very good level (80.36), and there was a very weak and significant correlation on the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL learners and speaking
proficiency (r =0.016). It is reasonable to conclude that the hypothesis of Ha was accepted which means that there is a correlation on the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL learners and their speaking proficiency. This study could be a valuable guide for both foreign language learners and teachers to further improve the awareness of various speaking strategies and its effectiveness.
xi
English both as second and foreign language. Speaking strategies are defined as
devices employed by learners of a second or foreign language when confronted
with obstacles or difficulties of communicating the target language. This study
aims to explore, (1) the most frequent speaking strategies used by English as
Foreign Language (EFL) learners, (2) learners’ speaking proficiency, and (3) the
correlation on the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL learners and
their speaking proficiency. The method used was descriptive correlational research
in which data were collected from 52 EFL learners of EED UMY batch 2015. The
data were gathered by distributing the speaking strategies questionnaire modified
from Moriam Quadir (2014), and collecting the speaking score from the lecturer
of Listening and Speaking for Academic Purpose course. The findings revealed
that the speaking strategies that were most frequently used by EFL learners were
social strategies (mean value = 4.23), the learners’ speaking proficiency was in
very good level (80.36), and there was a very weak and significant correlation on
the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL learners and speaking
proficiency (r =0.016). It is reasonable to conclude that the hypothesis of Ha was
accepted which means that there is a correlation on the most frequent speaking
strategies used by EFL learners and their speaking proficiency. This study could
be a valuable guide for both foreign language learners and teachers to further
improve the awareness of various speaking strategies and its effectiveness.
Chapter I
Introduction
Research Background
Within the field of education, language learning strategies (LLS) have
been portrayed as a considerable attention in which are among the main factors
that help to determine how well learners learn second or foreign language. In
recent years, many researches have been conducted in order to fulfill the need of
investigating what aspects that can influence learners‟ success in achieving the
target language. The use of language learning strategies to be one of the tools
which can be interfaced with the learners‟ prosperity in language learning. Many
familiar researchers in many years ago like Rubin (1975), Stern (1975), O‟Malley
(1995), Chamot (1995), and Oxford (1990) explored that the success in language
learning is likely influenced by the use of language learning strategies that easy
for the learners to experience with and take for granted.
In language learning, learners are strived to be capable of achieving the
four skills including reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Since the overview
of the acknowledgement of English as a language communication tool, speaking
is one of the skills which can demonstrate to the existence of English. For most
foreign language learners, the main goal of learning a foreign language is to be
able to communicate or to create learners who are able to speak English as their
communication tool. It is in line with Chastain (1988) in Skandari, Behjat &
communicating the culture knowledge. Approximately, speaking becomes the skill
that promote communication, therefore, people knowing a language means that
people are able to speak.
Many English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners encounter problems in
speaking that result in creating many cases around the learning process. Indeed,
many of EFL learners face the difficulties in speaking especially when there is a
communication activity in the class. It is proven after the researcher has
interviewed some learners at EED UMY Batch 2015 and learners batch 2013 in
December when they had a break time outside the class, who were lack of
enthusiasm to speak during the discussion in the learning process. It is supported
by Lazarton (2001) in Moattarian & Tahririan (2013) stated that “speaking
appears to be demanding for foreign language learners” (p. 22). To encourage
their communication skill, they need more opportunities to practice speaking. It is
also asserted by Lucas (2009, p. 7) that “as you learn to speak more effectively,
you may also learn to communicate more effectively in other situations.” Learners
also usually feel anxious to communicate spontaneously. Anxiety level might
influence potentially to the learners‟ affective (Krashen, 1981). These cases lead
into a remarkable question that should be answered orderly; what is the
appropriate method to deal with? It can be answered by considering the available
strategies to overcome problems encountered in communication. Thus,
investigating speaking strategies is critically needed.
Seeing that communication strategies play an important role in acquiring
solve the problems that faced by learners. It is apposite with an assumption which
is said by Moattarian and Tahririan (2013) that communication strategies are used
to tackle communication problems. Besides, there have been extensive researches
regarding the speaking strategies used by EFL learner. According to Willems
(1987), integrating communication strategies to the learners can permit the weaker
learners to “develop a feeling of being able to do somethingwith the language”
(p.352). It has also been proven by some studies, Najafabadi (2014) showed that
the use of speaking strategies would produce better speaker, and more recently,
Skandari, Behjat, and Kargar (2015) established the high proficient learner
influenced to the greater use of strategies. It is believed that the use of speaking
strategies will help improving the learners‟ speaking proficiency. By deciding the
strategies, learners can manage their own ways to engage their speaking skill. The
greater of frequency use of the speaking strategies also contribute to their success
in solving the speaking problems. For reaching that goal, the current issues around
speaking have been investigated especially in the area of foreign language
learning. To date, previous researches were conducted to investigate the relations
between communication strategies and proficiency (Liu, 2004; Ardekani &
Razmjoo, 2011; Kaivanpah et.al, 2012; Moattarian & Tahririan, 2013; Uztosun &
Erten, 2014; Maldonado, 2015).
Based on the explanation above, the researcher is interested in conducting
the research in order to discover the speaking strategies used by EFL learners of
English Education Department of Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (EED
by EFL learners and their speaking proficiency. To know the speaking strategies
used by the learners, the researcher used modified questionnaires from Moriam
Quadir (2014) which was adapted from Oxford (1990) „The Strategies Inventory
for Language Learning‟ (SILL). The questionnaires consisted of six group
categories of strategies which was divided into direct strategies including memory,
cognitive, and compensation, then, direct strategies including metacognitive,
affective, and social strategies.
Problem Identification
After interviewing some English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners
(personal communication, December, 2015) at EED UMY, the researcher has
identified several problems appeared related to the study. Firstly, some learners
feel difficult in the process of speaking practice. Since speaking is a crucial part of
language learning, then the objective of learning language is learners‟ capability to
produce the knowledge and the language itself. Even the rule of speaking is
conveying information or thought into expression in spoken language, but the way
of sending message should be accurate in order to be succeeded in
communication. Indeed, this is something faced by the learners as obstacles or
rules that they should be perceived to reach the perfectness. The evidence point is
the possibility that they will only think how to be as perfect as the rule without
considering their feeling of worry will derive them into failure. Frequently, they
just focus on the feeling without providing actions to encourage this skill and to
step forward. Hence, the learners should be capable of preparing strategies
preferences.
Secondly, many foreign language learners have experienced with the
communicative anxiety in learning foreign language, specifically in speaking or
producing the language. The high-anxiety of foreign language learners indicate
many symptoms such as freezing up when speaking in front of the class and
feeling blank when asked to answer question even though knowing the answer
(Ortega, 2009). On Ortega‟s theory, the result of the previous survey about the
statement related to anxiety in speaking, “some individuals report experiencing
intense feelings of apprehension, tension, and even fear, when they think of
foreign languages” (Ortega, 2009, p. 200). This statement even happens at the
researcher‟s own experience in the class, similar to other learners in which they
face the same obstacle about anxiety. According to Noon-ura (2008), some
speaker feel terrifying stress and encounter great nervous up to blushing face. This
may be caused by a lack of confidence due to fear and anxiety as asserted by Trent
(2009). Without adequate knowledge and awareness, those obstacles cannot be
faced wisely, hence, those will effect on their speaking proficiency which was
assumed to be related to each other. This needed the role of strategies to face the
obstacles in speaking in order to enhance the learners‟ speaking proficiency as
proposed by Skandari, Behjat, and Kargar study (2015).
Thirdly, some of the learners have already tried to find out various actions in
dealing with the obstacles in speaking such as through self-talking, watching
English movies, listening to English songs, practicing new vocabularies, and
existence of speaking strategies used by learners as their own formula to
overcome speaking difficulties. Hismangolu (2000) as cited in Razmjoo and
Ardekani (2011) states that “language learners are continuously looking for ways
of applying strategies to deal with situations in which they face new input and
tasks proposed by their instructors”(p. 116). Based on the statement above, the
researcher concludes that language learning strategies have fundamental role to
the learners‟ language proficiency and the use of speaking strategies also
contributes to the teaching and learning process. Therefore, the role of strategies
are needed to face the obstacles in speaking in order to enhance the learners‟
speaking proficiency as proposed by Skandari, Behjat, and Kargar study (2015).
Problem Limitation
One area of constraint in carrying out this research is to reveal the
speaking strategies that most frequently used by EFL learners and their speaking
proficiency, and to examine the correlation on the most frequent speaking
strategies used by EFL learners and their speaking proficiency.
In this study, the researcher used the modified questionnaires from Moriam
Quadir (2014) which consisted of 31 items and speaking score of 52 EFL learners
at EED UMY batch 2015. The questionnaire was used to discern the speaking
strategies that were employed by learners.
Problem Formulation
By considering the importance of speaking strategies used on learners‟
1. What speaking strategies are mostly used by EFL learners at EED UMY in
Listening and Speaking for Academic Purposes class?
2. What are the speaking proficiency of EFL learners at EED UMY in
Listening and Speaking for Academic Purposes class?
3. Does the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL learners correlate
with learners‟ speaking proficiency in Listening and Speaking for
Academic Purposes class?
Research Objectives
By carrying out this research, several objectives will be sought according
to the research questions. First, this research aims to explore the speaking
strategies are mostly used by EFL learners in Listening and Speaking for
Academic Purposes class. Second, this research attempts to identify the EFL
learners‟ speaking proficiency in Listening and Speaking for Academic Purposes
class. Lastly, this research aims to scrutinize the correlation on the most frequent
speaking strategies used by EFL learners and their speaking proficiency in
Listening and Speaking for Academic Purposes class.
Research Hypothesis
Based on the research questions above, the hypothesis are formulated as
follow:
Ho = there is no correlation on the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL
learners and their speaking proficiency
Ha = there is a correlation on the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL
Research Significance
Researcher. This research hopefully can help broaden the researcher‟s
insight in the various speaking strategies that are often used by learners and its
correlation to the proficiency. Then, the researcher can have the awareness of what
strategies best for her in learning, and it can be reflected in researcher‟s capability
in understanding, solving problems, and challenging the obstacle in speaking into
her own learning style.
Learners. This research aims as a beneficial guide to exhibit learners in
choosing what speaking strategies that can help them in their own learning styles.
Moreover, learners can create and seek out opportunities to learn more effectively
based on their own needs and preferences.
Teachers. This research is beneficial for language teachers as an overview
about the various styles of speaking strategies used in order to develop the
teaching technique based on the various speaking strategies.
Other researchers. This research provides an overview in order to find the
appropriate teaching method that cover the various speaking strategies in teaching
Chapter II
Literature Review
For better understanding the correlation on the speaking strategies used by
EFL learners and their speaking proficiency, this chapter provides ideas expressed
in the literature associated with this subject. This chapter will begin with a brief
talk about the overview of language learning strategies, the classifications of
language learning strategies, and then followed by speaking strategies, speaking
proficiency, and what the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is.
Afterwards, the correlation on the speaking strategies and speaking proficiency,
and studies on speaking strategies are discussed.
Language Learning Strategies
Language learning strategies become something big which covers many
kinds of strategies on it. The strategies play crucial role in the context of language
learning whether in second language or foreign language learning. These
strategies are figured as a fundamental tool for enhancing the learners‟ skill and
engagement to be better learners and better in communication.
Definition. In the context of language learning, there will is a system of
thought in order to succeed in the process of acquiring knowledge and information
as input, called „strategies‟. This key is importantly used to establish provided
action and behavior for language learners in enhancing their learning. Learning
strategies have been described by Vlckova, Berger, and Volkle (2013, p. 94) as
“one of the key determinants of language acquisition and educational
employing conscious thoughts and actions in the way of reaching the learning
goal. “Learning strategies are specific actions taken by the learners to make
learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and
more transferrable to new situations (Oxford, 1990, p. 8)”. It is, indeed, “seemed
to be a great need for the learners to become aware of their learning styles and
preferences as well as a conscious selection in the light of learning objectives and
task demands” (Alcon & Guzman, 2000, p. 393).
More, Macaro (2001) assumed that „learner strategies‟ refers to the
learners‟ role “as the active participant in the process of learning” (p. 20). This
statement had been explained in detail by McDonough (1999, p. 2) as quoted by
Macaro (2001, p. 20), that “The learner is not simply a performer who responds to
the requirements of „teaching strategies‟ but „a problem solver and reflective
organizer of the knowledge and skill on offer in the language exposure and
required for effective language use.” Indeed, learners have a vital role as a player
in their learning which means that they have privilege to decide how and what
they need to do to enrich their knowledge and skill of using the language.
According to Takac (2008), “learning strategies are considered superior to
skill leaning strategies… and the ability to monitor the learning situation and
respond accordingly” (p. 49). Furthermore, Rubin (1975) in Griffiths (2008)
stated that learning strategies refers to what learners do to learn and do to regulate
their learning. O‟Malley and Chamot (1990, p.1) as mentioned by Razmjoo and
Ardekani (2011, p. 116) define learning strategies as "special thoughts or
information". On the other hand, strategies by Ortega (2009) are defined as a
mental or behavioral activity related to some specific stage in the process of
language use, and it spreads “as processes which selected by learners and which
may result in action taken to enhance the learning use of L2, through the storage,
recall and application of information about the language” (Cohen, 1990, p. 4) as
cited in (Zare, 2012, p. 163).
Classification of Language Learning Strategies. Several preexisting
second and foreign language learning strategies classification have been classified
by many researchers (Oxford, 1990; O‟Malley, 1985; Rubin, 1987; Stern, 1992).
Oxford's (1990).The most phenomenal theory found about learning
strategies is provided by Oxford (1990) which is classified into two main
categories, direct strategies and indirect strategies.
Direct strategies. As Oxford's (1990) stated, “all direct strategies require
mental processing of the language” (p.37). It means that, the entire information
process is intensively conducted mentally in the learners‟ brain. These strategies
are divided into memory, cognitive and compensation strategies. Memory
strategiesare used in the process of remembering in which the stored information
is retrieved. These strategies consist of four sets including: creating mental
linkages, applying images and sounds, reviewing well, and employing action.
Cognitive strategies consist of these following effective ways to handle the target
language including practicing, receiving and sending messages, analyzing and
reasoning, and creating structure for input and output. Compensation strategies
knowledge gaps. These strategies are divided into two sets: guessing intelligently
and overcoming limitations in speaking and writing. According to Oxford's
(1990), compensation strategies in speaking will help learners in enriching the
knowledge of the language, engaging their practice in producing the language
fluently, and dealing with the speaking gaps in optimizing better speaking.
Indirect strategies. They consist of metacognitive, affective and social
strategies. Metacognitive strategiesenable learners to control their own cognition
which consist of centering (overviewing and linking with already known material,
paying attention and delaying speech production), arranging and planning for a
language task and practice opportunities, and finally evaluating using
self-monitoring and self-evaluating. Affective strategies assist learners to control their
emotions, motivations, and attitudes associated with language learning through
lowering anxiety, self-encouraging, and taking emotional temperature. On that,
learners can be more responsible, communicative, and cooperative. Social
strategies build interactive learning to the learners associated with social
environment, namely as asking questions (to reach larger input in improving
self-involvement, understanding, and to facilitate self-correction), cooperating (to
maintain their confidence and create positive capabilities), and empathizing others
(to be aware of others‟ thought and feeling).
O’Malley’s (1985). O'Malley et al. (1985) as mentioned in Zare (2012)
divided language learning strategies into three main categories. Metacognitive
Strategiesare expressions to indicate learners‟ activities such as planning for
monitoring their own learning activities including correcting mistakes, and
evaluating learning. Cognitive strategiesas stated by Brown (2007) “are more
limited to specific learning tasks and involve more direct manipulation of the
learning material itself” (p.134). According to O‟Malley et.al (1987) as cited in
Zare (2004, p. 164), the foundations of cognitive strategies are “repetition,
resourcing, translation, grouping, note taking, deduction, recombination, imagery,
auditory representation, key wording, contextualization, elaboration, transfer, and
inferencing.” While social-affective strategies are related to social interaction
involved over the learning process including cooperation and question for
clarification (Brown, 2007).
Rubin’s (1987). Rubin (1987) cited in Zare (2012) made a distinction
between strategies contributing directly to learning and those contributing
indirectly to learning. Direct strategies include metacognitive and cognitive
strategies, while indirect strategies include communication and social strategies.
According to Rubin, three class strategies are used by learners that contribute
either directly or indirectly to language learning:
Learning Strategies. These strategies contribute directly to the development
of language system created by the learners. There are two types of these kinds of
learning strategies; cognitive learning strategies which refer to the steps or
measures that involve direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning
materials including clarification, guessing, inferencing, deductive, reasoning,
practice, memorization, and monitoring (Rubin, 1987). On the other hand,
learning. They consist of four procedures such as planning, prioritizing, setting
goals, and self-management.
Communication Strategies. These strategies focus on the process of learners
involving real situations setting, such as having conversation and getting meaning
across or clarifying what the speaker intended. These strategies are used to be
applied when the speakers are facing obstacles in communication or when
confronted with misunderstanding in conversations. Using these strategies,
learners may be more capable in practicing their language through involving
themselves into real communication practices without worrying about
grammatical structures. It will increase their awareness and understanding of the
spoken language and how to handle the conversation.
Social Strategies. Social strategiesare activities in which learners have great
opportunities to explore and acquire the knowledge they have. These strategies
offer a contribution to indirect learning, since they do not lead directly to the
obtaining, storing, retrieving, and using of language (Rubin, 1987). Moreover,
learners may have a great opportunity to reach their language acquisition through
the interaction with social environment.
Stern's (1992).Language learning strategies have been classified into five
groups by Stern's (1992) in Zare (2012). They are as followed: Management and
planning strategies, cognitive strategies, communicative - experiential strategies,
interpersonal strategies and affective strategies. Management and planning
strategies give learners chance to manage their own ability to plan reasonable
progress based on the objectives, while teacher will play role as counselor and
resources only, because learners have their own responsibility in making their
own decision in learning. Cognitive strategies are related to procedures and
activities which learners imply to memorizing material, solving problem,
monitoring process, and clarifying procedures. Communicative-experiential
strategies employ many rules including gesturing (use non-verbal
instrument/initial body language), paraphrasing, or asking for repetition and
explanation in order to keep the conversation working, and using direct
non-verbal interaction to avoid interrupting the course of communication. In
interpersonal strategies,learners have opportunities in monitoring their learning
development and evaluating their performances in the target language like
interacting with native speakers (Stern, 1992). On affective strategies,in order to
deal with many cases of feeling difficulty in learning another language, learners
have to choose applicable solution to overcome the problems toward emotional
feeling, and finally, some affective strategies are built to be used in optimizing the
learning process by focusing on the problem and facing when they come up
(Stern, 1992).
Speaking
In the context of English as Foreign Language learning, speaking is one of
the complex topics emerging in language learning. When talking about speaking,
many surrounding issues will also be appeared like the obstacles, the influencing
factors, and the strategies. To inferentially cope with the purpose of the current
also assuredly needed. This part will begin with the general description about
speaking, and subsequently the speaking strategies and speaking proficiency.
Definition. Speaking is an action of acquiring language into a spoken
language which give opportunity to produce language. Scrivener (2005) noted that
“fluency and confidence are important goals, and there is no point knowing a lot
about language if you cannot use it”(p.146). Simply put, when learners are able to
acquire the knowledge and the information about a language and transform it into
a speech and having the ability to practice the language into a communicative
product, it means that the learners have succeeded to produce the language
intensively. Speaking re fers to the practice of trying out the language that have
been learned. Learners cannot be judged as a successful language learners if they
cannot speak the language properly.
Speaking Strategies. Summarizing from all definitions about learning
strategies, the researcher assumes that the term of learning strategies is associated
with communication strategies in which being a part of the categories, lead to be
familiar as the term of speaking strategies in the same case. Thus, this research
adopt the learning strategies theory as the resources and will be familiar named
speaking strategies on this study. As for the definition, one may concludes that
speaking strategies refer to actions, behaviors, techniques, processes, plans, skills
and tools that controlled and selected by the learners in order to enable learner to
reach the target language use and the ability to communicate the language or
produce language. This concept demonstrates that speaking strategies would
appeared from the foreign language learners. It is endorsed by Bialystok (1990, p.
3) as mentioned in Uztosun and Erten (2014, p. 170) assumed that “strategies are
used only when a speaker perceives that there is a problem which may interrupt
communication”. Similarly noted by Moattarian & Tahririan (2013),
communication strategies are helpful tools or ways for both second and foreign
language learners to communicate in the presence of such deficiencies. Taking
any deep sense, there are three different points of views, „deep strategies‟ aids to
long-term learning; „surface strategies‟ meant to superficial uses and do not aid to
long-term meaning, and „proficiency strategies‟ merely lead to reaching good
grades. Hence, this research encompasses the learning strategies theories above to
convey the information on the concept of speaking strategies theory (Schmeck,
1998, cited in Hurd and Lewis, 2008).
Speaking Proficiency. According to Griffith (2003, p.48), “communicative
competence view of proficiency as a multidimensional phenomenon implies that it
is valid to test for discrete language abilities (such as listening or grammar) when
assessing proficiency”. Hymes theory (1972) as cited in Griffith (2003)
highlighted that communicative competence is an ability or skill in conveying
language and interpreting it into an utterance which shown the high or low result
of producing language into measured product called „proficiency‟. While the
result of acquiring the target language into language outcome can be called as
speaking proficiency. This proficiency is used to measure the effects of oral
Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
Based on Oxford (1990) the SILL theory, the Strategies Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) test version 7.0 was designed as a valid tool for
collecting data on the language learning strategies. As revealed by Kazamia (2010,
p.277), “it is a structured questionnaire, aiming to assess how often learners
employ specific language learning strategies”. The SILL is used to test the
learning strategies used that learners may employ at different scales. The SILL is
incorporated into 50 items divided into six parts. Part A includes 9 items about
Memory Strategies. Part B consists of 14 items related to Cognitive Strategies.
Part C contains 6 items about Compensation Strategies. Part D consists of 9 items
on Metacognitive Strategies. Part E contains of 6 items about Affective Strategies,
and part F includes 6 items for Social Strategies. In order to indicate the frequency
of using the strategies, the SILL uses 5-point Likert Scale for ranging (never (1),
rarely (2), sometimes (3), often (4), always (5)).
Based on Kazamia (2010) study, the SILL test which has been used more
than 10,000 learners and translated into many languages, has also been used by
many researchers in conducting data on learning strategies.
The Correlation on Speaking Strategies Used and Learners’ Speaking
Proficiency
As stated in Oxford (1990) that learning strategies are interfaced with the
development of communicative competence despite of the instruction employed
by the teacher will facilitate learners to enable enhancing their learning
Razmjoo and Ardekani (2011) suggested that LLS provides learners with a
systematic cycle, self-improvement, and self-monitoring strategies used in their
EFL classroom activities.
By involving speaking strategies, learners may be more aware to develop
their speaking skill and optimize the speaking learning process. Learners may
have high authority for improving their skill using appropriate strategies that
valuable to them. Indeed, they may expect to solve their obstacles in speaking by
developing crucial steps or behavior which is reflected on needs and willingness.
The role of teachers in this case, they have to be able to train their learners to
build up learner independence and autonomy as noted by Tseng (2005). Thus,
when learners are aware of their own needs in increasing their speaking skills,
they will be more critical in using the strategies which appropriate with their
needs and preferences. Therefore, the learners‟ speaking proficiency will also be
affected. It is assumed that speaking strategies could be applied in order to know
the development of the oral performance (Quadir, 2005).
Studies on Speaking Strategies Used
This research refers to the previous study by Najafabadi (2014) entitled
“The Use of Speaking Strategies by Iranian EFL University Students”. This study
investigated Iranian male and female EFL learners at Islamic Azad university of
Najafabad in Iran. The data were collected through strategies questionnaire
adapted from Nakatani (2006) Oral Communication Strategies Inventory (OCSI)
and Oxford Placement Test (OPT) for ranking proficiency level. The participants
there were no significant correlation between the use of speaking strategies and
their gender. In addition, there were no differences related to the speaking
strategies used and the proficiency level between two group; low and
high-proficient. The pedagogical implication also discussed in this article.
In line with the analysis of Mistar and Umamah (2014) conducted an
analysis entitled “Strategies of learning speaking skill by Indonesian learners of
English and their contribution to speaking proficiency”. This paper dealt with the
review of the investigation of Mistar and Umamah (2014) into whether the gender
influence in the use of learning strategies in speaking and also the contribution of
the strategies used on speaking proficiency in 595 second year Senior High
School learners from eleven regencies in East Java, Indonesia. This paper was a
comparative and correlational study which collected the data by giving
questionnaires of Oral Communication Learning Strategies (OCLS) derived from
Oxford‟s (1990) Learning Strategies items and 10 items of self-assessment of
speaking skill using Likert Scale ranging 1 to 5. The data were analyzed by SPSS
software type 20. The finding result showed that gender exposed significant effect
on the differences of the strategies used and that the contribution of learning
strategies to speaking proficiency was positively significant. The study showed
that female provided greater use of each strategies category than male especially
indicating the use of cognitive interaction maintenance, self-evaluation,
fluency-oriented, time gaining, compensation, and interpersonal strategies. Furthermore,
the study indicated that the use of learning speaking strategies strongly correlate
cognitive interaction maintenance, self-improvement, and compensation
strategies. This study suggested that EFL learners should be aware of the number
of available strategies that might be useful for them and teacher should encourage
an explicit strategies-based instruction to help learners to achieve success in
enhancing their speaking skill.
Another study by Skandari, Behjat, and Kargar (2015) in their research
titled “An investigation of speaking strategies employed by Iranian EFL
students”. This article was aimed to highlight the investigation of speaking
strategies used by Iranian EFL learners. The method used was descriptive and
inferential research in which data collected from the survey result of the Iranian
EFL undergraduate learners in Shiraz Azad university, Shiraz Branch in English
Teaching and English translation. Two classes were randomly selected and
examined by using an accidental sampling procedure consisted of 35 female and
25 male learners. They were divided into three group including high,
intermediate, and low based on their proficiency level in an Oxford Placement
Test. Based on the result of the questionnaire developed by Riazi and Kododadi
(2007), the analysis revealed that first, learners with high proficiency level
showed greater use of strategies than intermediate and low level learners. Second,
gender had a great influence to the degree in which participants chose
metacognitive and compensation strategies, in fact that the female were more
preferred to use metacognitive and comprehension strategies for male. Third,
other factors including cognitive, memory, and social strategies had no significant
Conceptual Framework
Speaking Strategies
Direct Strategies:
1. Memory 2. Cognitive 3. Compensation
Indirect Strategies:
1. Metacognitive 2. Affective 3. Social
The Most Frequent Used of Speaking Strategies
EFL Learners‟ Speaking
Proficiency
Chapter III
Methodology
In order to accomplish the goals and objectives, the methodology to
implement such research includes the following essential elements: 1) research
design, 2) population and sample, 3) data collection method, 4) data collection
technique, 5) validity and reliability, and 6) data analysis. It contains detailed
description of the whole parts to collect and to analyze the data from the
participants.
Research Design
This research was conducted using a descriptive correlational research
since its purposes were to describe the learners‟ speaking strategies and their
speaking proficiency, also the correlation between those variables. Descriptive
correlational research examines variables in their natural environment and avoids
changing the behavior of the people interacting with (Simon & Goes, 2011). In
this study, the researcher would like to see the correlation on speaking strategies
that most frequently used by EFL learners (independent variable) and their
speaking proficiency (dependent variable).
Population of the Research
The present research was carried out to expose the correlation on the
speaking strategies used by EFL learners and their speaking proficiency. For this
purpose, the population of this research was 156 EFL learners at English
Education Department of UMY batch 2015. There were two considerable reasons
researcher wanted to know what strategies used by the learners. The researcher
believed that the learners of this batch still had fresh experiences in learning
speaking, thus, they would have tried to seek out the strategies suitable for them in
achieving their learning goal in which to be able to speak in English. Secondly, in
term of accessibility, since the learners of batch 2015 still had to attend „make up
class‟ with other lecturer, it eased the researcher to gather the data.
Sample of the research
A total of 52 EFL learners in English Education Department of UMY batch
2015 participated in this research. The number also fulfilled the standard of
sample in a research as mentioned by Dornyei (2007) that correlational research
should have at least 30 people to enroll in the study. Two classes were selected
from four classes based on convenience and availability of the required class in
Listening and Speaking of Academic Purpose. Convenience sampling is a
sampling chosen accidentally when the research is conducted (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2011). There were two reasons of choosing these classes. Firstly, as the
learners encountered with the subject once a week for four credits to purposely
able at 200 minutes with academic oral practices such as having debate,
discussion, and academic presentation, this subject fulfilled the requirement of
measuring the speaking proficiency. Moreover, at the end of the semester, the
learners had academic presentation to examine their ability in speaking as their
final project.
Secondly, in term of accessibility, the learners still had class in June, hence,
have opportunity to collect the data at limited time. Due to this situation, the
researcher got the participants who were accessible and available at that time.
Instruments of the Research
The instruments used in this research included questionnaire and learners‟
speaking score.
Questionnaire. In order to obtain information about the use of the
strategies, a questionnaire was employed mainly to find out if the learners used
the strategies. The questionnaire used for data collection was primarily modified
from Moriam Quadir (2014) questionnaires and judged by the experts. The
researcher translated the speaking strategies questionnaire into Bahasa Indonesia
to make it easier for the participants to answer. The detailed specification of the
item categories were presented in Appendix B:
Table 3.1. Item Categories
Strategies Categories Number of Items
Metacognitive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Cognitive 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Compensation 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Memory 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
Affective 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
Table 3.2. The Scales of Questionnaire
Score Scale
1 Never
2 Rarely
3 Sometimes
4 Often
5 Always
The questionnaire was administered to learners of the second semester
who were studying English as a Foreign Language at EED UMY. The researcher
selected those five scales to determine their degree of the use of speaking
strategies among the learners. For verifying the validity of the questionnaire, the
researcher involved three expert judgments to check whether the questionnaire
was valid or not.
Speaking Score. The speaking scores were collected using documentation
technique which means the researcher obtained the scores from the lecturer. The
speaking scores were obtained from the accumulation of the oral tests and other
tasks related to the use of oral communication. The scores were acquired at the
end of the semester. The acquired scores were from debate, discussion, and
academic presentations. The score indicator rubric of the speaking task and
Table 3.3 The Speaking Rubrics
No. Categories Highlited to be Assessed
1. Manner Fluency
Grammar
2. Matter Content
3. Method
The way how deliver the
information or knowledge
Data Collection Technique
Since the Listening and Speaking for Academic Purposes class ended with
final assessment, the researcher distributed the questionnaires on the other class
where learners batch 2015 still had „make up class‟ with the other lecture in June
2016. Consequently, the researcher spread the questionnaires to two classes for
two days. The researcher asked permission to the lecturer of the class, and then
distributed the questionnaire when the class began. There were some learners who
did not come to the class, thus 52 learners were available at that time to enroll in
this study. Thus, the researcher was able to monitor the process of the
questionnaire administration, hence, when some learners had difficulties in
understanding each item in the questionnaire, the researcher was able to assist
them. The speaking scores were taken from the lecturer of Listening and Speaking
for Academic Purposes course at the end of June. After the data were collected,
strategies usage. The collected data were analyzed by using two tools including
SPSS software and Ms. Excel.
Validity and Reliability
Validity. Validity refers to the measurement which can indicate meaningful
and useful inferences from score on particular instruments (Creswell, 2013). To
ensure the validity of the data, the researcher applied construct validity and
instrument piloting by involving the three expert judgments to check whether the
data were applicable for measuring the speaking strategies or not. The expert
judgments were the lecturers of EED UMY who master in linguistics. The
translated questionnaire was validated by the three experts in order to check the
construct validity and to avoid the misconceptions of each item‟s statement. The
first expert judgment suggested some additions like giving an information about
where the Original Questionnaire was taken from, several word replacements
(item 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32), word additions (item 2, 3, 13, 14), and
word deletions (item 30) as seen in Appendix C.
The second expert judgment corrected the translation into Bahasa Indonesia
in the questionnaire such as: avoiding frequency use of certain adverb of time in
Indonesian such as ‘sering, tak jarang’ which were written in (items 1, 16, 19, 24,
26, 27, 28, 32), using some of the English named such as “English native speaker”
(items 9), deleting some wordings in Bahasa Indonesia to make them easier to be
understood by the respondents as in (item 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20, 25).
The third expert judgment, said that the item number 1 was not valid and
also some word replacements and additions in (item 10- 23), word deletions as in
(item 28, 29) as detailed shown in Appendix D. The researcher combined the
suggestions from the experts in order to revise the questionnaires. Finally, from 32
items taken from Moriam Quadir (2014) questionnaire, there were 31 items which
measured as valid items, and the researcher got a valid data see Appendix E.
Reliability. As stated by Salwa (2012, p. 48), “ reliability refers to the
consistency of test result”. By applying instrument piloting, the researcher tested
the questionnaires to prove the reliability and found the accepted standard of
Cronbach‟s Alpha index at 0.841. It is in accordance with Sekaran in Nazaruddin
and Basuki (2015), that an instrument could be said reliable if the coefficient of
Cronbach‟s Alpha () > 0.70.
From the table above, it could be seen that the speaking strategies
questionnaire is reliable to measure the speaking strategies used by the learners.
Data Analysis
Quantitative research method was applied in this research. The researcher
studie the result from the collected data to make a data analysis that stood after
the data collection from questionnaire, and later the data were transformed into
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 16.0). The data were
analyzed in two phases. Firstly, a frequencies statistic was employed to analyze
Table 3.4 Reliability Statistic
Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
the speaking strategies that were often used by the learners, and the learners‟
speaking score as mentioned in the research questions number one and two. The
descriptive statistic used in this research are modus, median and mean. Secondly,
the relationship between speaking strategies used and speaking proficiency were
Chapter IV
Results and Discussions
In this chapter, three main purposes and research finding would be
discussed. To begin with, the description of the frequency of using the strategies
among EFL learners will be explored in detail. Secondly, the learners’ speaking
proficiency will be described. Thirdly, the correlation analysis of both variables
with Pearson Product moment correlation will be described as well. Finally, this
chapter focuses on the discussion within the findings.
Results
This part attempts to present the results of the speaking strategies used, learners’
speaking proficiency and lastly, the result of the correlation on the speaking
strategies used by EFL learners, and their speaking proficiency.
The speaking strategies used by EFL learners. As discussed previously,
the aim of this research was mainly to find out the strategies used by EFL learners
of EED UMY batch 2015. As illustrated in Table 4.1, the mean value of the
frequency of using the strategies is sharply more than 3.5 value, therefore it is
speculated that the most of EFL learners employed the various patterns of
speaking strategies differently and received the advantages on using the various
strategies. In line with Najafabadi (2014), EFL learners were reported to use
groups of the speaking strategies differently. Research finding shows an overall
strong concordance with the previous studies in which learners applied various
table below illustrates to respond to the first research question about the most
frequent used speaking strategies by EFL learners of UMY batch 2015.
Table 4.1
Mean of Frequency Use Strategies
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Metacognitive 312 1 5 3.86 .905
Cognitive 260 1 5 3.75 .923
Compensation 260 1 5 3.85 .871
Memory 260 1 5 3.71 .856
Affective 260 1 5 3.87 .929
Social 260 2 5 4.23 .755
Valid N
(listwise) 260
As displayed in Table 4.1, the statistical analysis results of the strategies
used by EFL learners are summarized. In the majority of cases, social strategies
revealed a considerably higher level of mean value with mean 4.23 predicated as
the most appreciated and the most frequent used strategies by the learners when
learning speaking. Compare to the mean value of affective, metacognitive and
compensation strategies, have consistent range which were remained the same
point of range 0.01 which value on 3.87 (affective), 3.86 (metacognitive), and
3.85 (compensation). It is followed by cognitive strategies which have mean value
3.75, and finally the least preferred strategies, memory strategies (mean= 3.71).
The detailed descriptive analysis of each categories have been obtained in each
table categories description referring from Oxford (1990) strategies theory
including metacognitive, cognitive, compensation, memory, affective, and social
divides the percentages of using the strategies into three including rarely and
never as the lowest (did not frequently use the strategies), sometimes (medium),
then, often and always as the highest (mostly used the strategies).
Metacognitive strategies. Table 4.2 shows the result of descriptive statistic
on the accumulative use of metacognitive strategies among the EFL learners.
Table 4.2
Frequency of Using Metacognitive Strategies
Frequency Percent Valid
Table 4.2 shows the participants’ responses on using metacognitive
strategies. From 52 participants, the number of learners who did not frequently
use metacognitive strategies is 5.8% (never + rarely), while medium average is
28.8%, and mostly 65.4% (often + always) of the learners frequently used
metacognitive strategies.
Table 4.3
Frequency of Using Cognitive Strategies
Cognitive strategies. Table 4.3 above indicates the percentage of using
cognitive strategies from 52 of total participants in this study. The highest
percentages of using cognitive strategies are remarkably on 68% learners who
frequently used cognitive strategies to enhance speaking skill. Afterwards, 31.5%
learners used these strategies interpreted as medium, while 7.7% of the learners
who did not frequently use these strategies as rarely never.
Table 4.4
Frequency of Using Compensation Strategies
Frequency Percent Valid
Compensation strategies. Table 4.4 below identifies the descriptive
frequency of using compensation strategies. It can be seen that often and always
reveals a considerably higher percentage of learners employing compensation
strategies at total 69.3% of the learners frequently using these strategies. In
addition, 24.2% learners sometimes used compensation strategies to deal with
speaking difficulties, while 6.6% learners were reported lower in using these
strategies as rarely never.
Memory strategies. The results of the frequency percentages of using
memory strategies are displayed in Table 4.5. It shows that the number of the
practice are 56.5%, while 38.1 % learners are medium in using the strategies
interpreted as sometimes, and 5.4% learners are reported as the lowest frequently
used the strategies.
Table 4.5
Frequency of Using Memory Strategies
Frequency Percent Valid
Frequency of Using Affective Strategies
Frequency Percent Valid
Affective strategies. Table 4.6 illustrates that 68.4% of the learners
represented appreciably higher level of frequency usage the affective strategies as
mostly used the strategies. 25% learners are reported medium used these
strategies in speaking. There are 6.5% of the learners who did not frequently use
affective strategies interpreted as the lowest used the strategies.
Social strategies. Table 4.7 below reports the results of the frequency of
learners who mostly used social strategies when learning to speak English, while
18.5% shows the medium used social strategies in boosting their speaking skill.
The lowest frequency of using social strategies are 0.4% which means that 0.4%
of the learners did not frequently use social strategies.
Table 4.7
Frequency of Using Social Strategies
Frequency Percent Valid
Learners’ Speaking Proficiency. This part is written to answer the
second research question, “What are the speaking proficiency of EFL learners at
EED UMY in Listening and Speaking for Academic Purposes class?” To
distinguish the learners’ speaking proficiency, the learners’ speaking score were
used to measure the speaking proficiency. To simplify the score analysis, the
researcher presented the score in total score as seen in Appendix I. The descriptive
statistic of the speaking proficiency is displayed on Table 4.8 below.
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics of Speaking Proficiency
N Valid 52 Std. Error of Skewness 0.33
Missing 0 Kurtosis 27.38
Mean 80.3631 Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.65
Median 82.075 Range 90.49
Mode 86.6 Minimum 0
Std. Deviation 13.26031 Maximum 90.49
Variance 175.836 Sum 4178.88
Table 4.9 shows the standard to measure the level of the learners’ speaking
proficiency. The value of each category was found by counting the range of
maximum score and minimum score, then dividing it into 5, afterwards, use the
range to find the interval values.
Table 4.9 Categories of Speaking Score
No Interval Category
1 0.00 – 18.1 Very Low
2 18.2 – 36.4 Low
3 36.5 – 54.8 Fair
4 54.9 – 73.3 Good
5 73.4 – 90.49 Very Good
To know the learners’ level of speaking, the researcher used the result of
the speaking score by calculating the mean, median, and mode. The result in Table
4.8 shows that the value of mean is 80.36, while the value of median is 82.08, and
then the value of mode is 86.60. Afterwards, the researcher used the value of
mean in order to determine the learners’ speaking proficiency. Since the mean
value is 80.36, the result indicates that the participant of this study were in a very
good level of speaking proficiency.
Correlation on Speaking Strategies that Most Frequently Used by
EFL Learners and Their Speaking Proficiency. In examining the correlation
between variables, the researcher used the correlational analysis using Pearson
Product Moment correlation (r). To measure the strengths and weaknesses of the
coefficient correlation between two variables of this study, the researcher
employed a range of correlation criteria developed by Sugiyono (2003) in
Table 4.10
Coefficient Correlation Interpretation
Standard r xy Interpretation 0.00 - <0.199 Very weak correlation >0.20 - <0.399 Low or weak correlation >0.40 - <0.599 Moderate correlation >0.60 - <0.799 High or strong correlation >0.80 - 1.00 Very strong correlation
Table 4.11 Correlations
Social Strategy Speaking Proficiency
Social Strategy
Pearson Correlation 1 .016
Sig. (2-tailed) .910
N 260 52
Speaking Proficiency
Pearson Correlation .016 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .910
N 52 52
As illustrated in Table 4.11, the value of correlation coefficient (r) denotes
that there is a correlation on the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL
learners and their speaking proficiency. Table 4.10 shows the list of criteria
correlation for very low or weak correlation on 0.00-0.199 and very high
correlation is on 0.80-1.00. Accurately, there was very weak and significant
correlation (r) = 0.016. Since the correlation value of this study is on 0.16, thus,
accurately the increased of the most frequent speaking strategies usage correlate
very weakly and significantly to the increased of speaking proficiency of the
Discussion
This section covers the analysis of statistical data as reported detail in
previous section in order to answer the research question of this study. There are
three main purposes of this research namely investigating the learners’ speaking
strategies used, learners’ speaking proficiency, and establishing the correlation on
the speaking strategies used by EFL learners and their speaking proficiency.
The speaking strategies that most frequently used by EFL learners.
With respect to the first research question, as the results in which reported detail
in previous chapter reveal that all the speaking strategies are employed by EFL
learners of UMY batch 2015. The result shows that the average value of the
speaking strategies usage are more than 3.5 which means the learners are strategic
and approved using the strategies extorted from the group of speaking strategies
differently. This finding is associated with Najafabadi (2014), stated that EFL
learners reported that they employ the speaking strategies differently.
Interestingly, almost all of EFL learners reported the greatest choice to employ
social strategies with mean value (4.23) in their learning for communication.
These decisions were noticeably different from those obtained in Moriam (2014)
and recently Skandari, Behjat, and Kargar (2015) study, which stated that EFL
major learners frequently used cognitive strategies. Below are the detailed
discussions of the categories of strategies as explored in the results. Each
categories was analyzed in terms of its overall strategy employment by the
Metacognitive strategies. The result reveals that EFL learners at EED
UMY often used metacognitive strategies with mean value of 3.86, assuming that
many learners are able to regulate and manage their own learning processes. It
indicates that the learners are capable of planning, monitoring or controlling, and
evaluating their own learning behavior in order to enrich their performance of
communication, hence, they know how and what should be improved as noted by
Cabaysa and Baetiong (2010). These strategies enable learners to be active on
complementing the exact strategy with appropriate activity. Deeply, the various
action taken from the learners toward speaking challenges are indicated as paying
attention, self-monitoring, seeking practice opportunities, arranging and planning,
organizing, and self-evaluating. It can be noticed that the learners are aware of the
virtual ways in controlling their own learning process as proposed by Oxford that
metacognitive strategies provide ways for learners to organize with their own
learning process.
Cognitive strategies. From the result, denote that mean value of 3.75
learners using cognitive strategies potentially categorized as low value. Therefore,
it is speculated that the low mean value of cognitive strategies may be caused the
learners do not realize the importance of practice. Compare well with Oxford
(1990) and most recently Pawapatcharaudom study (2007) which mentioned that
language learner do not always realize how indispensable practice is. The
represented strategies are listed regarding the answer of questionnaire statement