THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ ABILITY
IN DISTINGUISHING HOMOPHONES TOWARD
STUDENTS’
LISTENING PERFORMANCE
(A Study of Listening 4 Class of IAIN Salatiga in the
Academic Year of 2016/2017)
GRADUATING PAPER
Submitted to the Board of Examiners as a partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd.) in English
Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty
State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga
By:
RAHMAH ASHIELA NAILUFAR
113 13 153
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
STATE INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES (IAIN) SALATIGA
i
iv
MOTTO
“How you climb a mountain is more important than reaching the top.”
–Yvon Chouinard–
“Whining is wasting. Get upand keep trying.”
v
DEDICATION
This graduating paper is especially dedicated for:
1. My beloved parents, my father Muchtar Mahmud, and my mother Muslihah Hayati. Your endless care, love, and support are very precious to me.
2. My beloved two older brothers, Najumuddi Hilmy and Alfan Fikri.
vi
ACKNOWLEDMENT
Alhamdulillahirobbil ‘alamin. All praises be to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, the Lord of Universe. Because of Him, the writer could finish this graduating paper as one of the requirements for getting Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd) degree in English Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga in 2017.
The completion of this graduating paper is not apart from the supports, encouragement, guidance, advice, and help from individuals and institution. Therefore, the writer would like to express the deepest gratitude to:
1. Dr. Rahmat Hariyadi, M.Pd, the Rector of State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga
2. Suwardi, M. Pd., the Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty 3. Noor Malihah, Ph.D., the Head of English Education Department
4. Faizal Risdianto, S.S., M.Hum., the counselor of this graduating paper. Thank you very much for the suggestions, guidance, and moreover, for time that was spent in guiding the writer to complete this graduating paper from the beginning until it is finished.
5. Kartika Indah Permata, S. Pd.I., M.A. The writer is very grateful for her cooperation in conducting the research in Listening 4 Class.
vii
7. All lecturers of English Education Department of IAIN Salatiga. The writer deeply appreciates the advices, knowledge, motivations, support, etc.
8. All the librarian of IAIN Salatiga. 9. My beloved family.
10. My friends in “Jeneng Group”, “Squad 98”, and all students of English Education Department 2013.
11. Everyone that the writer cannot mention one by one. Thank you very much for the encouragement, advice, and help.
Salatiga, August 14th, 2017 The Writer
Rahmah Ashiela Nailufar
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION………. i
ATTENTIVE COUSELOR’S NOTE……… ii
CERTIFICATION PAGE……….. iii
MOTTO……… iv
DEDICATION………. v
ACKNOWLEDMENT……… vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS……… viii
LIST OF FIGURES………. xii
LIST OF TABLES………... xiii
ABSTRACT………. xv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study………...……....… 1
B. Research Questions....………....………... 5
C. Objectives of the Study………. 5
D. Significances of the Study………. 6
E. Limitations of the Study……… 7
F. Hypothesis………. 8
G. Definition of Key Words………... 9
ix
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Previous Studies……….... 11
B. Supporting Theories……….. 15
1. Homophones……….... . 16
a. Definition of Homophones……….. 16
b. The Occurrence of Homophones………. 17
c. Distinguishing Homophones………... 18
d. List of American English Homophones……….. 19
2. Listening………... 33
a. Definition of Listening……….... 33
b. The Importance of Listening………... 34
c. Process of Listening……… 35
d. Types of Listening……….. 37
e. Factors That Affect Listening Process……… 42
f. Listening Strategies……… 44
g. Listening Comprehension……….. 45
h. The Process of Listening Comprehension………. 47
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Design………... 49
B. Research Approach……….. 49
x
1. Location of the Research………. 50
2. Time of the Research………... 51
D. Subject of the Study……….. 51
1. Population……… 51
2. Sample………. 51
E. Research Instruments……… 53
F. Technique of Data Collection………... 54
G. Technique of Validating the Data………. 55
H. Technique of Data Analysis……….. 60
I. Technique of Data Interpretation……….. 63
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS & DISCUSSION A. Data Presentation……….. 64
1. Extent of Students’ Listening Performance………. 65
2. Extent of Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones……… 68
3. Correlation between Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones toward Students’ Listening Performance…….. 71
B. Discussion………. 76
xi
1. Extent of Students’ Ability in Distinguishing
Homophones……… 79
2. Extent of Students’ Listening Performance………. 79
3. Correlation between Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones toward Students’ Listening Performance………. 81
B. Suggestions………... 81
REFERENCES
CURRICULUM VITAE
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Chart 4.1 Percentage of Students’ Listening Performance Level………. 67
Chart 4.2 Percentage of Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Types of Listening Based on Listener’s Goals……….. 40
Table 3.1 Respondents………... 52
Table 3.2 Data Validation for Listening Performance (LP) and Distinguishing Homophones (DH) Tests……….... 56
Table 3.3 Reliability Test Result (Listening Performance Test) Case Processing Summary……….. 58
Table 3.4 Reliability Test Result (Listening Performance Test) Reliability Test………. 58
Table 3.5 Reliability Test Result (Distinguishing Homophones Test) Case Processing Summary……….. 59
Table 3.6 Reliability Test Result (Distinguishing Homophones Test) Reliability Statistics……… 59
Table 3.7 Cronbach’s Alpha Value Interpretation……….. 59
Table 3.8 Calculating Mean Score Formula………... 60
Table 3.9 Score Classification...………. 61
Table 3.10 Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Formula………... 62
Table 3.11 r Value Interpretation………. 62
Table 4.1 Students’ Listening Performance Score………. 65
Table 4.2 Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones Score…………... 68
xiv
Table 4.4 Calculation Result of Required Data……….. 73
xv
ABSTRACT
Nailufar, R. A. (2017): “The Correlation between Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones toward Students’ Listening Performance (A Study of Listening 4 Class of
IAIN Salatiga in the Academic Year of 2016/2017)” Graduating Paper. Teacher Training and Education Faculty. English Education Department. State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga. Counselor: Faizal Risdianto, S.S., M. Hum.
The objectives in this study are to find out students’ ability in distinguishing homophones, to investigate students’ listening performance, and to verify the correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening performance. This study is quantitative in nature and the approach used in this study is structured approach. The subject of this study is the students of Listening 4 Class of English Education Department of IAIN Salatiga. The total respondents of this study is 18 students. The data of this research are collected through tests for listening performance and distinguishing homophones ability. The collected data are tested for its validity and reliability, and later analyzed using SPSS 16 for Windows. Based on test results sstudents’ listening performance is categorized as failed with mean score of 44.4. In addition, students’ ability in distinguishing homophones is categorized as good with mean score of 71.25. The calculation of the correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening performance has a correlation coefficient (r) value of 0.193. The result of the study shows that there is a positive correlations between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening performance even though the relationship is low.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Language is an important aspect in human’s lives. People need to convey what they think and feel to other people. They also need to understand what other people think and feel, so that they can understand each other. By understanding each other, they can avoid misperceptions toward each other. That is why language is important since it is used as a mean of communication among people. Through the use of language, people can share and get information, opinions, ideas, and even what they feel to other people.
Since there are so many language around the world, there have to be a language that can be understood and acknowledged by everyone. A global language is needed for that purpose. A global language is a language that has to be taken up by other countries around the world and these countries must decide to give it a special place within their communities, although they may have few (or no) mother-tongue speakers (Crystal, 2003:4).
2
international language, English has been used in many things such as in business, medical institutions, and even in educational life.
Since English is an international language that connects people around the world, this language has been taught in many schools. Especially in Indonesia, English is considered as the first foreign language which is taught at schools. Learning English is considered compulsory in schools. On top of that, young learners nowadays has started to learn English language as well, be it out of their own will, or from part of the school’s learning subject.
In learning English language, learners must be able to master the skills that are needed to be able to use English Language well. There are four skills in English language learning. These four skills are reading skill, writing skill, speaking skill, and listening skill. One of the four skills that has a complex process is listening skill.
3
According to Brown & Yule (1983), as quoted by Van Duzer (1997:3), in order to be able to comprehend what is being listened better, the learner needs to be familiar with the vocabulary. By doing so, English language learners can get what they hear properly and avoid unintended misunderstanding.
Regarding English vocabulary, there some words that are pronounced the same, and spelled differently called homophones (Gorfein and Weingartner, 2008:522). It means that homophones are words that have similar pronunciation, however they have different forms and different meanings.
Because of the similarly sounded words, learners may mistake one word for the other. They may end up using a wrong word that have the same pronunciation with the intended word. However, the chosen word has a different meaning from the intended word. Those words may sound the same, however they have different spellings and meanings.
There is an important matter that might affect students’ ability in
distinguishing English homophones. The matter is students might not being able to correctly distinguish similar words such as homophones. This occurrence is known as homophone confusion. Homophone confusion is the result of failure to distinguish between two existing lexical items that sound the same but are not spelt the same correctly (Solati, 2014:46).
The difficulty in learner’s ability to distinguish the similarly sounded
4
decide which word is the correct one to be used. They may feel confused whether their chosen word is the right word that they intend to use or not. Thus, homophone confusion may occur.
Regarding students’ listening skill, the writer also conducted a test. The test result shows that there were some students who answers the test by relying solely on the words that they hear based on their answer. These kind of answer can be called as a trap choice.
Because of these problems that has been stated before, the writer felt the need to conduct a research regarding the correlation between students’ ability to
distinguish homophone properly toward their listening skill. The writer wanted to find out whether students’ ability to distinguish homophone properly has an influence toward their listening skill or not, since both of these skills are related to hearing ability.
The writer chose IAIN Salatiga as the location of the research. In English Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of IAIN Salatiga, there is an advance level of listening class, listening 4 Class. By considering the advanced level of Listening 4 class, the writer decided that IAIN Salatiga is a suitable location for the research.
Based on the problems above, the writer formulated the title of this study as “The Correlation between Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones
toward Students’ Listening Performance (A Study of Listening 4 Class of IAIN
5
B. Research Questions
Based on the background of the study that has been written by the writer before, the problems of the study are formulated as follows:
1. T what extent is students’ ability in distinguishing homophones based on the result of the test done by the students of listening 4 class of IAIN Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017?
2. To what extent is students’ listening performance based on result of the test done by the students of listening 4 class of IAIN Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017?
3. Is there any significant correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening performance?
C. Objectives of the Study
In accordance with the problems of the study above, the objectives of the research are stated as follows:
1. To find out students’ ability in distinguishing homophones based on the result of the test done by the students of listening 4 class of IAIN Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017
6
3. To verify whether there is a significant correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening performance or not.
D. Significances of the Study
The writer conducted this study in hope that the results of this study can give contribution in some ways. This study was conducted in hope that the results can be useful for the readers, especially for English teachers/lecturers, learners, and future researchers.
1. Theoretically
The result of this study can be a reference to enrich the knowledge in language teaching, especially regarding the ability in distinguishing homophones and listening performance.
2. Practically
a. Teachers/Lecturers
The result of this study is intended to be used as a reflection for the teachers/lecturers regarding students’ ability in distinguishing
homophones and listening performance. The results of this study is also intended to encourage the teachers/lecturers to understand more about students’ level in listening skill. By understanding the level of
students’ listening skill, the teachers/lecturers can provide the
7 b. Students
The results of this study is intended to encourage the students to develop their listening skill. From this study, the students can try to understand that listening is a complex skill which needs the listeners to maintain some other aspects aside from relying solely on vocabulary, in this case homophones. Furthermore, the writer provided some theories in listening activities that can be applied by the students to develop listening skill.
c. Readers
The results of this study can be a reference for the readers that want to develop their listening skill.
d. Future Researchers
The results of this study can also be a reference and be developed by future researchers for future research.
E. Limitations of the Study
Limitations are factors that are usually out of the researcher’s control, that may have an effect on the results of the study or how the results are interpreted (Talab, 2008:6).
8
1. This study was especially conducted to investigate the correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening
performance
2. The study involved the students of listening 4 class of IAIN Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017.
F. Hypothesis
In a research, hypothesis is a statement which can be tested empirically (Bacon-Shone, 2015:19). Furthermore, Bacon-Shone stated that there are two types of hypothesis: research (alternative hypothesis) and null hypothesis. The research (or alternative) hypothesis is a statement, which is a positive statement, regarding what the researcher expects to find. On the other hand, the null hypothesis is a negative statement that states a relationship expected in the research hypothesis does not exist. It means that if the research result shows a positive statement, H0 will be rejected and Ha will be accepted. On the other hand, if the research result shows a negative statement, H0 will be accepted and Ha will be rejected.
In conducting this research, the writer had some expectations in mind regarding the result of the study. The expectations are symbolized through hypothesis. There are two hypothesis in the writer’s research: The null hypothesis
9
alternative hypothesis is symbolized as Ha. Therefore, the writer presents two hypotheses as follows:
1. H0: There is no significant correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening performance.
2. Ha: There is a significant correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening performance.
G. Definition of Key Words
To give an easier understanding regarding the title of this research, the writer defines the keywords as follows:
1. Homophones
Homophones are words that sound identically but have different meanings (Miozzo & Caramazza, 2005:1360). It means that in the oral form, homophone words sound identical. On the other hand, they have different written form. In addition, they also have different meanings.
2. Listening
10
2013:1). From the definition before, it can be concluded that listening is a skill that needs a complex process.
H. Organization of Graduating Paper
11
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Previous Studies
In this study, the writer chose some previous studies written by some writers in order to support the research conducted by the writer. There are three previous studies chosen by the writer as follows.
The first previous study was taken from a journal written by Olofin (9-17). The nature of the study is quantitative. In this study, the researcher attempted to examine the confusion brought up by lack of agreement between the sounds and letters of English language. The subject of the research were 50 final years Business Administration and Management Studies students. They were tested using two kinds of tests: spoken and written tests. The result of the study shows evidence that there were irregularities between the sounds and the letters of English Language. These irregularities makes effective communication hindered. The writer’s research is different from the first previous study. The differences are 1) the study done by Olofin used two forms of test: spoken and written test, on the other hand, the study done by the writer used one form of test: written test; 2) the study done by Olofin aimed to find out the irregularities found in the students’ test that are brought up by lack of agreement between the sounds
and letters of English language, while the writer’s research focuses on finding the
12
(differentiating different sounds and letters of English language) toward students’
listening performance. Even though they are different, there is a relation between Olofin’s study and the writer’s research. What makes them related are: 1) Olofin’s
study and the writer’s study are both qualitative in nature; 2) the writers’ research
make use of the knowledge that there is indeed a confusion (irregularities) that may happen between sounds and the letters of English Language. This knowledge is the base for formulating the distinguishing homophones test used by the writer in the research by relying on the ambiguity that may rise up when listening to homophones.
13
overall linguistic abilities, generally, and in their listening comprehension skill, particularly, are the main reasons for their unsuccessful performance. Another possible explanation is that the test demands can be a factor in determining students' success or failure in displaying their knowledge and using it successfully. From the result of the study it can be concluded that listening comprehension is a matter of both language problem and listening problem.
The writer’s research is different from the second previous study. The
differences are 1) the study done by El-dali is of mixed nature: qualitative and quantitative, while the writer’s study is quantitative in nature; 2) the study done
by El-dali is aimed to find out whether listening comprehension is a matter of both language problem and listening problem, while the writer’s research focuses on finding the correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones
toward students’ listening performance; 3) in El-dali’s study, the instruments
were pre-test, questionnaire, classroom instruction session, interviews, and post-test, while in the writer’s study only used test; 4) El-dali’s study used pre-test and
post-test, while the writer’s study used test for validating the research instrument, and the real test for collecting the final data. Even though they are different, there is a relation between El-dali’s study and the writer’s study. What makes them related are: 1) both of El-dali’s study and the writer’s study used listening test as the instrument of the research; 2) the writers’ research make use of the knowledge
14
makes the writer convinced that choosing advanced level students is the best choice since they have more experience in listening subject.
The third previous study is taken from an international journal of learning and development written by Wang (2016: 1-9). Wang attempted to find out the correlation between Listening Anxiety and ListeningStrategies. The subject of the research were 194 first-year postgraduate studentsat Shanghai University of Engineering Science (SUES) during spring semester. 12 subjectsweren’t able to follow the instructions and were excluded from the research. The total number of final sample was 182. All of them have learned English for at least 13 years prior to entering the university. The instruments used in this study were: Foreign
15
The writer’s research is different from the third previous study. The
differences are 1) the study done by Wang is to find out the correlation between Listening Anxiety and ListeningStrategies, while the writer’s research focuses on finding the correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones
toward students’ listening performance; 2) in Wang’s study there is a use of
questionnaire for personal background information, while in the writer’s study
only used test. Even though they are different, there is a relation between Wang’s
study and the writer’s study. What makes them related are: 1) both of Wang’s
study and the writer’s study are quantitative in nature; 2) both of Wang’s study
and the writer’s study uses correlation analysis.
By referencing to the previous studies, the writer conducted a correlative research between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones and students’ listening performance of the fourth semester students of listening 4 class of IAIN Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017.
B. Supporting Theories
1. Homophones
16
a) Definition of Homophones
The word homophone comes from two word: “homo” and
“phone”. The word “homo” means same, and the word “phone” means
sound, so the word homophone literally means same sound (Ripple, 2008:9).
Homophones are defined as words that are pronounced the same, and they spelled differently (Gorfein & Weingartner, 2008:522).
Another definition of homophones as proposed by (Miozzo & Caramazza, 2005:1360), homophones are words that sound identically but have different meanings. Based on the definitions defined by the Gorfein and Weingartner, Miozzo and Caramazza, in conclusion homophones are words that have similar pronunciation thus they sound identical but they differ in meaning, and also spelled differently.
17
Since homophones are pronouned the same, the ambiguity is present in the spoken form (Gorfein & Weingartner, 2008:522). As an ilustration, the word night and knight are pronounced similarly. If someone hear one of this words without recognizing the overall context of what is being heard and recall the correct written from, misunderstanding may occurs. This may lead to homophone confusion that will be discussed in the next part.
b) The Occurrence of Homophones
The reason homophones can occur in English is because there are multiple ways to spell the same sound (Rippel, 2008:9). For example:
1. The sound of /n/ can be spelled with the letter n or the letter combination kn, resulting in the homophones night and knight.
2. The sound of /ā/ can be spelled a-consonant-e or ay (among other possible spellings), giving us daze and days.
3. The schwa sound (the muffled /uh/ sound of vowels in unaccented syllables) causes words like complement and compliment to be pronounced alike.
18
words boy and buoy have the same pronunciation in England (and therefore are homophones) but not in America(Rippel, 2008:9).
c) Distinguishing Homophones
The ability to distinguish homophones is an ability to make a difference between similarly sounded words that are actually different. To be able to distinguish homophones correctly, the learner must be able to recognize the true written form of the word that they hear regarding the context of what they hear. In this case, what they hear can be in the form of a sentence or more. As an illustration, the word “weather” and “whether” are pronounced similarly, but they
have different spellings and completely different meanings. If one of these words is heard in a sentence (e.g.: Today’s weather is nice), the
listener may end up not being able to recognize the correct written form and think “whether” is the right one instead.
The failure in distinguishing homophones may happen because of the lack of exposure to the English spelling system, inadequate experience and practice, and the way English words are grouped and presented to the learners (Solati, 2014:47).
19
definition stated by Solati, it means that a learner may face some difficulties in distinguishing homophones properly which leads into a failure in distinguishing these words.
Solati also states that homophone confusion happens as the results of weak or fuzzy mental images of words (Solati, 2014:47). In this case, learners may face confusion regarding the correct spelling of the intended word as some words are pronounced similarly (homophones).
d) List of American English Homophones
21 borough, burgh, burro, burrow
34 ware, wear, weir, where
35
whoa, woe whop, wop whys, wise wild, wiled with, withe wont, want wood, would
yawn, yon yoke, yolk yore, you're, your
you'll, yule
2. Listening
a) Definition of Listening
Tyagi (2013:1) describes listening as a psychological process of receiving, attending to constructing meaning from and responding to spoken and/or non-verbal messages which involves a sender, a message and a receiver. Since listening comprises the process of receiving, constructing meaning, and responding to spoken or non-verbal messages, listening is considered as somewhat a complicated skill to master.
36
b) The Importance of Listening
Listening is a language skill which is used frequently. The importance of listening (Gilakjani & Ahmadi, 2011:978) are listed as follows:
1. According to Morley (1999) and Scarcella & Oxford (1992), listening is a language skill which the most frequently used. 2. According to a study conducted by Barker, Edwards, Gaines,
Gladney, and Holley (1980), the portion of verbal communication time spent by college students was 52.5 percent for listening, 17.3 percent for reading, 16.3 percent for speaking, and 13.9 percent for writing.
3. According to Devine (1982), listening is the crucial means in taking incoming ideas and information.
4. According to Wolvin and Coakley (1988), listening spends daily communication time more than other forms of verbal communication in and out of the classroom.
5. According to Coakley & Wolvin, (1997), Feyten (1991), and Wing (1986), listening is essential to students’ lives throughout
all levels of educational development.
It is obvious that listening is very important in people’s lives.
37
especially, listening is important for the purpose of gaining knowledge from the explanations explained by the teacher/lecturer.
c) Process of Listening
There are five stages that occur during the process of listening as suggested by Tyagi (2013:1) as follows:
1. Receiving (Hearing)
Receiving or hearing is the first step which occurs in the process of listening. It necessary for someone to hear in order to listen. However, one doesn’t need to listen when hearing. In listening, someone needs to pay an attention as the requirement. In the brain, there are only a few stimuli that are permitted to come into focus. These are known as attention which is required for effective listening.
2. Understanding (Learning)
38 3. Remembering (Recalling)
In this stage, a listener is not only received and interpreted a message, but also added it to the mind’s memory.
In listening, our attention is selective. That also apply to our memory.
4. Evaluating (Judging)
This stage requires an active listener to weigh evidence, and determines the presence or absence of bias as prejudice in a message.
5. Responding (Answering)
The last stage that occur during the process of listening is responding. In this part, a listener must complete the process through verbal and/or non-verbal response. This stage is the only means by which the sender may determine the degree of success in transmitting the message because the sender does not have any other way to determine if the message has been received.
d) Types of Listening
39 1. Intensive Listening
Intensive listening is a type of listening practice in which the listener listen closely for precise sounds, words, phrases, grammatical units, and pragmatic units. This type of listening practice, accurate perception is involved in higher level comprehension and listening. The ability to listen intensively is an important component of listening proficiency.
The learning focus in intensive listening are focus on phonology, syntax, and lexis. The activity focus in this type of listening practice is the learner pays close attention to what is actually said.
2. Selective Listening
Selective listening is a type of listening practice in which the listening lessons are carefully planned and graded. This is done for the purpose of helping the listeners (students) learn to listen and get facts so that they become ready to listen and get ideas.
40 3. Interactive Listening
Interactive listening is a type of listening activity in which the listener is listening in a collaborative conversation. In collaborative conversation, learners interact with each other or with native speakers. It has potential benefits to be both forcing comprehensible output (persuading learner to formulate ideas in the target language) and forcing negotiations (leading the learner to understand language which is initially not understood).
The learning focus in interactive listening are focus on becoming active as a listener, and attempt to clarify meaning or form. The activity focus in this type of listening practice is the learner interact verbally with others, in collaborative tasks to discover information or negotiate solutions.
4. Extensive Learning
41
The learning focus in extensive listening are focus on listening continuously, and managing large amounts of listening input. The activity focus in this type of listening practice is the learner listens to linger extracts and performs meaning oriented tasks.
5. Responsive Listening
Responsive listening is a type of listening practice that aims for listener’s response in the activity. The type of listener’s
response is affective (expressing opinion or point of view). The learning focus in responsive listening is focus on learner response to input. The activity focus in this type of listening practice is the learner pursues opportunities to respond and convey opinions and ideas.
6. Autonomous Listening
Autonomous listening is a type of listening practice which refers to self-directed listening (independent listening) activity in which learners choose what to listen to, seek feedback on their comprehension, respond in ways they choose, and monitor their own progress.
The learning focus in autonomous listening is focus on learner’s progress management, and navigation of ‘help’
42
learner selects own extracts and tasks, monitor own progress, and decides on own patterns of interaction with others.
There are also another types of listening based on the listener’s goals. Here are the types of listening based on the listener’s goals:
Table 2.1
Types of Listening Based on Listener’s Goals
(Field, 2009:66)
Global Local
Shallow attentional
focus
Skimming (listening generally to establish discourse topic and
to locate information relevant to the listener.
43
‘What happened
next?’
Conversational
listening
‘What is the speaker’s
message?’
‘What is the answer
to these questions?’
Close listening to establish the speaker’s
main points and to trace connections between them.
‘What is important?’
Close listening to record in depth the speaker’s main points
44 Very deep
attentional focus
Listening to check
critical facts
‘Is this consistent?’
Listening to vital
instructions
‘I assume that
everything is important.’
Listening to the
form of words
‘What precisely did
he say?’
e) Factors That Affect Listening Process
There are some factor that affect listening process that can determine the listeners’ success related to listening comprehension.
According to Brown & Yule (1983), as quoted by Van Duzer (1997:3) the factors of listening are listed as follows:
1. The Listener
Listeners’ interest in a topic increases the listening
45
in effect, eavesdropping a conversation which has been recorded on an audiotape. Furthermore, the ability to use negotiation skills (such as asking for clarification, repetition, or definition of points that are no understood by the listener), enable a listener to understand the incoming information.
2. The Speaker
The extent to which the speaker speaker use colloquial language and reduced forms can give impact to listening comprehension. A speaker’s rate of delivery, which can be too
fast, too slow, or have too many hesitations for a listener to follow can also affect listeners’ comprehension. The more a
listener is exposed to these things, the better their ability to comprehend it. The listener also need to practice recognizing these kind of speech habits as clues to interpret the meaning. 3. Content
In order to be able to comprehend what is being listened better, the learner needs to be familiar with the vocabulary and have sufficient background knowledge. Background knowledge includes semantics and socio-culture aspects.
4. Visual Support
46
video, pictures, diagrams, gestures, facial expressions, and body language.
f) Listening Strategies
In order to be successful in listening activities, a learner must prepare some strategies. The strategies for listening activities as proposed by Sharma are divided into three stages: before listening, during and after listening, and after listening. The explanation of listening strategies (Sharma, 2011:15) will be explained as follows: 1. Before Listening: Plan for the Listening Task
There are three things that the listener must take note in the first phase of listening strategies. First, the listener must decide the purpose in advance regarding what is wanted to be listened.After that, the listener must decide if the listener need more background information. Then, the listener must decide to look after the overall meaning or focus on the words and phrase. 2. During and after listening: Monitor Comprehension
47
Next, the listener must do a review to ensure comprehension. Then, the listener must ask for help if necessary.
3. After Listening: Evaluate Comprehension and Strategy Use In the last phase, the listener need to pay attention to four important things. First, the listener must assess comprehension in a certain area. Second, the listener must evaluate overall progress in listening and in certain types of listening tasks. Third, the listener must make a decision if the strategies used were suitable for what is aimed.Lastly, the listener must modify strategies if needed.
g) Listening Comprehension
Regarding the term “listening comprehension”, the term can
48
O‘Malley, Chamot, and Kupper (1989) explained that listening comprehension is an active process in which the listener constructs meaning by using hints from contextual information and existing knowledge, while relying on numerous strategies to perform the task’s requirement (Gilakjani & Ahmadi, 2011:978).
From the explanations above, listening is indeed a complex process. To be able to comprehend what is being listening, the listener, need to construct the meaning of what they have listened. Before the listener can comprehend and construct the meaning of what is being listened, the listener must be able to “catch” what is being listened. If
they cannot “catch” what it is, they won’t be able to recognize what
they have listened. Furthermore, constructing the meaning and comprehending the overall information will be hard to do. They may end up catching the wrong information.
h) The Process of Listening Comprehension
49
stages: perceptual stage, parsing stage, and utilization stage (Chiou, 2006:2). The stages are listed as follows:
1) Perceptual Stage
In the perceptionalstage, the attention of the listener is focused on the oral text and preserve the sound in echoic memory.However, listeners were affected by selective attention as a result of the limitation of their echoic memory. Listener transferred the information in echoic memory almost immediately to short-term memory to process the sounds for meaning.
2) Parsing Stage
In parsing stage, listener construct meaningful mental representations using words and messages. They restructured the information into a meaningful unit which can be stored in short-term memory.
3) Utilization Stage
50
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
This study is quantitative in nature. It used correlative method to investigate the correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening performance. Correlation analysis studies
the combined variation of two or more variables in order to determine the amount of correlation between those two or more variables (Kothari, 2004:130). The main emphasis in a correlational research is to find out or create the existence of a relationship/ association/ interdependence between two or more aspects of a situation (Kumar, 2011:9).
The writer analyzed the correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening performance using
correlation analysis.
B. Research Approach
51
The writer planned out the things related to the research process in beginning before the writer conducted the research. This helped out the writer because the writer already planned what would be done in and after the process of the research.
C. Research Settings
1. Location of the Research
The writer conducted the research in State Institute for Islamic Studies Salatiga (IAIN Salatiga). The reasons behind the writer’s consideration on choosing IAIN Salatiga as the place of the research is because IAIN Salatiga has credibility, especially the Teacher Training and Education Faculty (FTIK). In addition, in FTIK, there is a department which is suitable for conducting the research, English Department. English Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty was chosen because the research is related with listening performance, which can be conducted in one of the listening classes.
52
2. Time of the Research
The research was conducted on Wednesday, 17th of May, 2017 and on Wednesday, 24th of May, 2017. The research started at 10:20 a.m. until finished.
D. Subject of the Study
1. Population
Population in a research is the entire mass of observations, which act as the main group from which a sample is to be formed (Pandey & Pandey, 2015:40).
The population of this study were the students of listening 4 class of IAIN Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017. There were two classes of listening 4 subject, class Y and class Z. Class Y was consisted of 23 students, and class Z was consisted of 26 students. Therefore, the total number of population in this study is 49 students.
2. Sample
53
In this study, the writer used purposive sampling technique. Purposive sampling is a sampling technique in which the sample is approached with a prior purpose in mind and the criteria of the included elements in the study is predefined (Alvi, 2016:30).
The sample of this study were the students in class Y of listening 4 class. Out of 23 students, there were 18 students who were present in the class, thus these 18 students were the participants of the real test. The students are listed as follows:
Table 3.1
Respondents
No.
Student ID
Numbers
Name
Code
Name
1. 113-13-068 Agustina Ridho Utami ARU 2. 113-13-069 Alfi Hamidatun Nushroh AFH 3. 113-14-033 Lina Nurul Halimah LNH
4. 113-14-189 Anis ‘Azzah AN
5. 113-13-122 Ossi Rinawati OR
6. 113-13-028 Monica Lolita Meity MLM
7. 113-13-119 Siti Istiqomah SI
54
10. 113-14-099 Siti Fatimah SF
11. 113-14-001 Yuniar Dewi Damayanti YDD 12. 113-14-182 Ahmad Munaja Ghufron AMG 13. 113-14-002 Fatia Putri Hasna FPH
14. 113-14-003 Nurul Imamah NI
15. 113-13-066 Dwi Ratnasari DR
16. 113-14-021 Irma Innayati Fauziyyah IIF 17. 113-14-093 Diah Tri Hastutik DTH 18. 113-13-146 Rika Kusuma Wardani RKW
55
E. Research Instruments
The instruments used in this research are two kinds of tests. The tests used in this study were: 1) test that measures students’ ability in distinguishing
homophones; 2) test that measures students’ listening performance. Both of the
test are consisted of multiple choices and audio which related to both of the tests, but in different sections.
The test used for listening section was borrowed from uses listening diagnostic post-test from Longman’s Complete Course for the TOEFL Test by Deborah Philips. In addition, for distinguishing homophones test, the writer made the audio using Natural Reader application. Natural Reader is a text-to-speech application for Microsoft Windows with natural sounding voices that can be converted to audio files. For the sentences, the writer made it herself. Before making the sentences that would be used in the test, the writer made sure that the words really have similar pronunciation by checking it in the Oxford Dictionary and double checked it again using electronic dictionary that can speak up the words.
F. Technique of Data Collection
56
Their answers are only used for the purpose of validating the instrument. The second phase is the real test done by the students in class Y of listening 4 subject. In conducting this research, the writer used two kinds of tests in order to collect the necessary data. The tests used in this study were: 1) test that measures students’ ability in distinguishing homophones; 2) test that measures students’
listening performance.
The first type of the test is consisted of questions with multiple choices for answers. The audio is consisted of some conversations with questions followed after that. The first type of the test is listening test uses listening diagnostic post-test from Longman’s Complete Course for the TOEFL Test by Deborah Philips (2001).
The second type of the test is also consisted of questions with multiple choices. However, the audio is composed of several sentences. The students were given incomplete sentences and they had to fill the blank parts by choosing the right answers based on the monologue that they heard.
G. Technique of Validating the Data
57
In order to check the validity of the data, the writer used Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS is a software package for windows which is used for statistical analysis.
The writer used predictive validity for validating the items of the test. Predictive validity is a condition which shows how far the test has been able to express its ability to predict what will happen in the future precisely (Anas Sudijono, 2011:168). To predict what will happen in the future means that the test can predict students’ achievement in doing the test. In predictive validity, the
writer used Product Moment Analysis Technique from Karl Pearson.
58
Table 3.2
Data Validation for Listening Performance (LP) and Distinguishing
59
Q17 0.659 Valid 0.632 0.715 Valid
Q18 -0.357 Invalid 0.632 0.635 Valid
Q19 0.740 Valid 0.632 0.498 Invalid
Q20 0.908 Valid 0.632 0.183 Invalid
Q21 0.706 Valid 0.632 -0.382 Invalid
Q22 0.737 Valid 0.632 0.762 Valid
Q23 -0.247 Invalid 0.632 0.279 Invalid
Q24 0.706 Valid 0.632 0.902 Valid
Q25 0.618 Invalid 0.632 0.684 Valid
After the writer checked the validity of the test, the writer omitted 17 questions from the real test. The real test then done 18 students of listening 4 class which were not included in the trial test.
Aside from checking the validity, the writer also checked the reliability of the test. Reliability means consistency related to the result if it is measured repeatedly (Bacon-Shone, 2015:53).
For the reliability test, the writer used SPSS program to check the reliability of the test. For listening performance test, the Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.899. In addition, for distinguishing homophones test, the Cronbach’s Alpha is
60
Table 3.3
Reliability Test Result (Listening Performance Test)
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid Excluded Total
10 0 10
100.0 .0 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Table 3.4
Reliability Test Result (Listening Performance Test)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha
N of items
.958 15
Table 3.5
Reliability Test Result (Distinguishing Homophones Test)
Case Processing Summary
N %
61 Excluded
Total
0 10
.0 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Table 3.6
Reliability Test Result (Distinguishing Homophones Test)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha
N of items
.955 17
To interpret the result of the reliability test in SPSS, the writer used the following table for interpreting Cronbach’s Alpha.
Table 3.7
Cronbach’s Alpha Value Interpretation
According to George and Mallery as quoted by Gliem & Gliem (2003:87)
Value of Cronbach’s Alpha Interpretation
> 0.9 Excellent
> 0.8 Good
> 0.7 Acceptable
> 0.6 Questionable
62
< 0.5 Unacceptable
Based on the result, the value of Cronbach’s Alpha for listening
performance test is 0.958, which is more than 0.9. It means that the listening performance test has excellent reliability. In addition, the value of Cronbach’s
Alpha for listening performance test is 0.955, which is placed above 0.9. It means that the distinguishing homophones test also has excellent reliability.
H. Technique of Data Analysis
In analyzing the data collected by using tests, the writer did the following steps:
1. Measuring both the mean score of the test regarding subjects’ ability in distinguishing homophone and listening performance by using the following formula:
Table 3.8
Calculating Mean Score Formula
Mx=
Ʃ𝑥 𝑁
Mx:Mean of x
Ʃ𝑥: The sum of x
𝑁: Number of participants
63 Mx=
Ʃ𝑦 𝑁
Ʃ𝑦: The sum of y
𝑁: Number of participants
2. Interpreting how good are students’ ability in distinguishing homophones and students’ listening performance based on the following table:
Table 3.9
Score Classification
(Sudijono, 2011:35)
No Student‘s Score Mark Interpretation
1. 80 – 100 A Excellent
2. 66 – 79 B Good
3. 56 – 65 C Fair
4. 46 – 55 D Bad
5. 0 – 45 E Failed
3. Calculating the correlation coefficient between the two variables using Pearson’s product-moment formula to find out the correlation coefficient.
64
Table 3.10
Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Formula
r = 𝑁(Ʃ𝑥𝑦)−(Ʃ𝑥)(Ʃ𝑦)
√[𝑁Ʃ𝑥2−(Ʃ𝑥)2][𝑁Ʃ𝑦2−(Ʃ𝑦)2]
r =correlation coefficient
X and Y = variable X and Y
XY = the product of multiplying
X and Y
Ʃ
=
sumN = number of pairs
4. Interpreting the r value by using the classification for interpreting the r value based on the following r value interpretation table:
Table 3.11
r Value Interpretation
(Rumsey, 2009:59; Rumsey, 2016)
r Value Interpretation
65 Closer to -0.5
Moderate downhill (negative) relationship
Closer to -0.30 Weak downhill (negative) relationship
0 No linear relationship
Closer to +0.30 Weak uphill (positive) relationship Closer to +0.5 Moderate uphill (positive) relationship Close to or beyond +0.7 Strong uphill (positive) relationship
+1 Perfect uphill (positive) relationship
I. Technique of Data Interpretation
After analyzing the data, the writer interpreted the result of the data analysis by answering the questions that are present in the problems of the study regarding the extent of students’ ability in distinguishing homophones, students’
66
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS & DISCUSSION
A. Data Presentation
This chapter presents the data related to the problems of the study. The questions are:
1. To what extent is students’ ability in distinguishing homophones based on the result of the test done by the students of listening 4 class of IAIN Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017?
2. To what extent students’ listening performance based on result of the test done by the students of listening 4 class of IAIN Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017?
3. Is there any significant correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening performance?
There are two variables that will be analyzed in this chapter, these variables are:
1. The independent variable (X) which is students’ listening performance. 2. The dependent variable (Y) which is students’ ability in distinguishing
homophones.
The presentations of data regarding students’ listening performance,
67
students’ ability in distinguishing homophones and students’ listening
performance will be presented further in three sub headings.
1. Extent of Students’ Listening Performance
In this part, the writer will presents the calculation of the students’
score in listening performance.
Table 4.1
Students’ Listening Performance Score
No. Students Score
1. 113-13-068 53.3
2. 113-13-069 40
3. 113-14-033 20
4. 113-14-189 33.3
5. 113-13-122 60
6. 113-13-028 73.3
7. 113-13-119 60
8. 113-14-030 26.7
9. 113-14-079 53.3
10. 113-14-099 33.3
11. 113-14-001 46.7
12. 113-14-182 80
68
14. 113-14-003 33.3
15. 113-13-066 46.7
16. 113-14-021 40
17. 113-14-093 40
18. 113-13-146 46.7
To find out the extent of student’s listening performance, the writer
will calculate the mean of the test’s score by using the following formula:
Mx=
Ʃ𝑥 𝑁
Mx:Mean x (listening performance)
Ʃ𝑥: The sum of x (listening performance)
𝑁: Number of participants
M x=
Ʃ𝑥 𝑁
= 799.9
18
=
44.469
50%
28% 11%
5% 6%
Failed Bad Fair Good Excellent
Score Qualification for Listening Performance
No Student‘s Score Mark Interpretation
1. 80 – 100 A Excellent
2. 66 – 79 B Good
3. 56 – 65 C Fair
4. 46 – 55 D Bad
5. 0 – 45 E Failed
Based on the result, it shows that the students of Listening 4 class of IAIN Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017 have failed in listening performance with mean score of 44.4. For the individual level of students’ listening performance is presented by the chart below:
Chart 4.1
70
Based on the chart, it can be seen that 50% of the students failed the test, 28% are at bad level, 11% at fair level, 5% at good level, and 6% at excellent level. There are 9 students who fall failed the test, 5 students who fall to bad level, 2 students who fall to fair level, 1 student who falls to good level and 1 students who falls to excellent level. Half of the students failed the test of listening performance, while only 1 student falls to the good level and 1 student falls to the excellent level.
2. Extent of Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones
In this part, the writer will presents the calculation of the students’ score regarding their ability in distinguishing homophones.
Table 4.2
Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones Score
No. Students Score
1. 113-13-068 82.4
2. 113-13-069 70.6
3. 113-14-033 70.6
4. 113-14-189 70.6
5. 113-13-122 52.9
71
7. 113-13-119 70.6
8. 113-14-030 70.6
9. 113-14-079 82.4
10. 113-14-099 70.6
11. 113-14-001 76.5
12. 113-14-182 82.4
13. 113-14-002 52.9
14. 113-14-003 58.8
15. 113-13-066 47.1
16. 113-14-021 88.2
17. 113-14-093 88.2
18. 113-13-146 82.4
To find out the extent of student’s ability in distinguishing
homophones, the writer will calculate the mean of the test’s score by using
the following formula:
My=
Ʃ𝑦 𝑁
My:Mean y (ability in distinguishing homophones)
Ʃ𝑦: The sum of y (ability in distinguishing homophones)
72 Mx =
Ʃ𝑦 𝑁
= 1282.5
18
=
71.25By finding out the average of the score, it will be interpreted to find out the extent of students’ ability in distinguishing homophones. To determine the level, the result will be based on the criteria as follows:
Score Qualification for Listening Performance
No Student‘s Score Mark Interpretation
1. 80 – 100 A Excellent
2. 66 – 79 B Good
3. 56 – 65 C Fair
4. 46 – 55 D Bad
5. 0 – 45 E Failed
73
17%
11%
39% 33%
Bad Fair Good Excellent
Chart 4.2
Percentage of Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones Level
Based on the chart, 17% of the students are at bad level, 11% at fair level, 39% at good level, and 33% at excellent level. There are 3 students who fall to bad level, 2 students who fall to fair level, 7 students who fall to good level and 6 students who falls to excellent level. It can be seen that most of the students fall to the good and excellent level of listening performance, while only three students fall to the bad level.
3. Correlation between Students’ Ability in Distinguishing Homophones
toward Students’ Listening Performance
In this study, the writer uses Pearson’s product-moment correlation formula in order to find out the correlation coefficient between students’
ability in distinguishing homophones toward students’ listening
74
correlation between students’ ability in distinguishing homophones toward
students’ listening performance or not. The formula is as follows:
r = 𝑁(Ʃ𝑥𝑦)−(Ʃ𝑥)(Ʃ𝑦)
√[𝑁Ʃ𝑥2−(Ʃ𝑥)2][𝑁Ʃ𝑦2−(Ʃ𝑦)2]
r = correlation coefficient
X and Y = variable X and Y XY = the product of multiplying
X and Y
Ʃ
=
sumN = number of pairs
First, the writer will try to find out the overall total of X, Y, X2, Y2, and XY in order to facilitate the calculation.
Table 4.3
Calculation of Required Data
No.
Code
Name
X Y X2 Y2 XY
1. ARU 53.3 82.4 2840.89 6789.76 4391.92
2. AFH 40 70.6 1600 4984.36 2824
3. LNH 20 70.6 400 4984.36 1412
4. AN 33.3 70.6 1108.89 4984.36 2350.98
75
6. MLM 73.3 64.7 5372.89 4186.09 4742.51
7. SI 60 70.6 3600 4984.36 4236
8. HNF 26.7 70.6 712.89 4984.36 1885.02
9. LR 53.3 82.4 2840.89 6789.76 4391.92
10. SF 33.3 70.6 1108.89 4984.36 2350.98
11. YDD 46.7 76.5 2180.89 5852.25 3572.55
12. AMG 80 82.4 6400 6789.76 6592
13. FPH 13.3 52.9 176.89 2798.41 703.57
14. NI 33.3 58.8 1108.89 3457.44 1958.04
15. DR 46.7 47.1 2180.89 2218.41 2199.57
16. IIF 40 88.2 1600 7779.24 3528
17. DTH 40 88.2 1600 7779.24 3528
18. RKW 46.7 82.4 2180.89 6789.76 3848.08
Total 799.9 1282.5 40613.79 93934.69 57689.14
From the previous calculations, the writer gets the following results than will be used in calculating the correlation coefficient. The results are as follows:
Table 4.4
Calculation Result of Required Data
76
N 18
Ʃ𝑥
799.9Ʃ𝑦
1282.5Ʃ𝑥
2 40613.79Ʃ𝑦
2 93934.69(Ʃ𝑥
)
2 639840.01(Ʃ𝑦)
2 1644806.25(
Ʃ𝑥𝑦)
57689.14Then, the writer will calculate the correlation coefficient using the following formula:
r
=
𝑁(Ʃ𝑥𝑦)−(Ʃ𝑥)(Ʃ𝑦)√[𝑁Ʃ𝑥2−(Ʃ𝑥)2][𝑁Ʃ𝑦2−(Ʃ𝑦)2]
=
18(57689.14)−(799.9)(1282.5)√[18x40613.79−639840.01][18x93934.69−1644806.25]
=
1038404.52 − 1025871.75√[731048.22−639840.01][1690824.42 −1644806.25]
=
12532.7777
The Correlation between Students’ Ability in Distinguishing
Homophones toward Students’ Listening Performance
Listening Distinguishing Pearson Correlation
Homophones Sig. (2-tailed)
