CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
E. Technique of Data Analysis
The data was analyzed by using SPSS program package. The steps in processing the data were as follows:
a. Editing
This stage was checking the results of questionnaires that had been collected to determine the suitability of respondents' answers. Where in editing there was no replacement answers with the intention that the data is consistent and in accordance with the purpose of research.
b. Coding
This stage was a sign or code to facilitate analysis when processing data.
c. Entry
At this stage the selected data was entered into the computer for further processing used the SPSS program.
d. Cleaning
At this stage the data that had been obtained and collected then cleaned by checking the data, and then only retrieve the correct data so there was no dubious or false data.
To answer the first question, the researcher used standard score by Oxford.
Table 3.1 Standard score for students’ level of LLS use
Level Responses Score
Score of Responses
High
Always or almost used 4.5 to 5.0 5
Usually used 3.5 to 4.4 4
Medium Sometimes used 2.5 to 3.4 3
Low Generally not used 1.5 to 2.4 2
Never or almost never used 1.0 to 1.4 1
(Oxford, 1990)
To answer the second questions, the collected data were then analyzed in two steps by using independent sample T-Test formula of SPSS version 16.0.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the research findings and the discussion of the findings. The findings of the research are the language learning strategies are frequently used by male and female students and the differences between male and female students in the use of language learning strategies. The discussion talks about the detail findings containing arguments and interpretation
A. Findings
The findings of the research are the language learning strategies are the most strategy used by male and female students and the differences between male and female students in the use of language learning strategies.
1. The Most Strategy Used by Male and Female in SMA Negeri 22 Makassar
The result of strategy analysis on items the responses of the students to each category of strategies are separately classified into three groups, namely high, medium, and low usage. The six types of strategies are identified as follows:
Table 4.1 The Result of Memory Strategy
Level Score Frequency Percentage (%)
Male Female Male Female
High 3.5-5.0 1 2 2.0 4.0
Medium 2.5-3.4 34 35 69.4 70.0
Low 1.0-2.4 14 13 28.6 26.0
Total 49 50 100.0 100.0
The table 4.1, presents that the frequency of memory strategies that used by the students. It shows that there are 1 male students (2.0%) and 2 female students (4.0%) classified in high category, 34 male students (69.4%) and 35 female students (70.0%) classified in medium category, while 14 male students (28.6%) and 13 female students (26.0%) classified in low category.
Table 4.2 The Result of Cognitive Strategy
Level Score Frequency Percentage (%)
Male Female Male Female
High 3.5-5.0 2 3 4.1 6.0
Medium 2.5-3.4 33 39 67.3 78.0
Low 1.0-2.4 14 8 28.6 16.0
Total 49 50 100.0 100.0
As shown in the table 4.2, there are 2 male students (4.1%) and 3 female students (6.0%) which are classified in high category, 33 male students (67.3%) and 39 female students (78.0%) classified in medium category, while 14 male students (28.6%) and 8 female students (16.0%) classified in low category.
Table 4.3 The Result of Compensation Strategy
Level Score Frequency Percentage (%)
Male Female Male Female
High 3.5-5.0 17 14 34.7 28.0
Medium 2.5-3.4 29 32 59.2 64.0
Low 1.0-2.4 3 4 6.1 8.0
Total 49 50 100.0 100.0
Based on the description of the frequency of compensation strategies in the table 4.3, it reveals that 17 male students (34.7%) and 14 female students (28.0%) are classified high category, 29 male students (59.2%) and 32 female students (64.0%) are classified medium category, while 3 male students (6.1%) and 4 female students (8.0%) are classified low category.
Table 4.4 The Result of Metacognitve Strategy
Level Score Frequency Percentage (%)
Male Female Male Female
High 3.5-5.0 7 6 12.2 12.0
Medium 2.5-3.4 42 44 87.8 88.0
Low 1.0-2.4 - - - -
Total 49 50 100.0 100.0
The data in the table 4.4 shows the result of the frequency usage of metacognitive strategies that are used by 7 male students (12.2%) and 6 female students (12.0%), 42 male students (87.8%) and female students
(88.0%). Meanwhile there is no students got low category in these strategies.
Table 4.5 The Result of Affective Strategy
Level Score Frequency Percentage (%)
Male Female Male Female
High 3.5-5.0 5 11 10.2 22.0
Medium 2.5-3.4 37 35 75.5 70.0
Low 1.0-2.4 7 4 14.3 8.0
Total 49 50 100.0 100.0
The table 4.5, reveals that the result of the frequency usage of affective strategies which are used by the students. It shows that there are 5 male students (10.2%) and 11 female students (22.0%) classified as high category, 37 male students (75.5%) and 35 female students (70.0%) classified as medium category, while 7 male students (14.3%) and 4 female students (8.0%) classified as low category.
Table 4.6 The Result of Social Strategy
Level Score Frequency Percentage (%)
Male Female Male Female
High 3.5-5.0 12 16 24.5 32.0
Medium 2.5-3.4 37 27 75.5 54.0
Low 1.0-2.4 - 7 - 14.0
Total 49 50 100.0 100.0
From the result in the table 4.6, it reveals that 12 male students (24.5%) and 16 female students (32.0%) are classified high category, 37 male students (75.5%) and 27 female students (54.0%) are classified medium category, while 7 female students (14.0%) are classified low category.
The general demographic data of the respondents. The results are shown based on the questionnaires as follows:
Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics for Male Students in the Use of LLS
Strategies Mean SD Rank
Memory 2.71 0.40 6
Cognitive 2.81 0.41 5
Compensation 3.13 0.57 1
Metacognitive 3.10 0.34 2
Affective 2.85 0.42 4
Social 3.08 0.48 3
Based on the table 4.7, the most frequently used of six strategy categories by male students is compensation strategy (M=3.13, SD=0.57), followed by metacognitive strategy as the second preferred strategy with an average mean score of (M=3.10, SD=0.34), social strategy ranked third in position (M = 3.08, SD=0.48), while affective strategy in fourth place (M = 2.85, SD=0.42), cognitive strategy as the fifth preferred (M = 2.81, SD=0.41) and memory strategy ranked in last position (M=2.71, SD=0.40).
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for Female Students in the Use of LLS
Based on the table 4.8, the most frequently used of six strategy categories by male students is metacognitive strategy (M=3.17, SD=0.36), followed by compensation strategy as the second preferred strategy with an average mean score of (M =3.14, SD=0.52), affective strategy ranked third in position (M = 3.12, SD=0.48), social strategy in fourth place (M = 3.09, SD=0.48), memory strategy ranked fifth in position (M = 2.79, SD=0.45) and cognitive strategy ranked in last position (M=2.77, SD=0.40) .
2. The Difference Between Male and Female Students in the Use of Language Learning Strategies in SMA Negeri 22 Makassar.
The statistic results of T-Test on differences between male and female students in the use of language learning strategies are showed. The mean score of male and female differences in language learning strategies use are presented too
Table 4.9 illustrates the statistical data analysis for male and female students in the use of language learning strategies. In this research the
Strategies Mean SD Rank
Memory 2.79 0.45 5
Cognitive 2.77 0.40 6
Compensation 3.14 0.52 2
Metacognitive 3.17 0.36 1
Affective 3.12 0.48 3
Social 3.09 0.63 4
researcher uses the level statically 0.05 Levenes‟ test as the basic consideration (see appendix 6).
Table 4.9 Independent Sample Test on LLS Modified for Male and Female Differences
Strategies
Male Female
T Significant
Mean Mean
Memory 2.71 2.79 0.99 0.32
Cognitive 2.81 2.77 0.44 0.65
Compensation 3.13 3.14 0.12 0.90
Metacogitive 3.10 3.17 0.95 0.34
Affective 2.85 3.12 2.96 0.04
Social 3.08 3.09 0.06 0.94
The detail analysis of hypothesis for each strategy is presented as follows:
a. Memory Strategies
From the table 4.9, the value of T for memory strategies is 0.99 with probability (sig2 tailed) 0.32, because 0.32> 0.05, it could be concluded that the use of memory strategy is not significant different between male and female students.
b. Cognitive Strategy
From the table 4.9, the value of T for cognitive strategy is 0.44 with probability (sig2 tailed) 0.65, because 0.65 > 0.05 it could be concluded that the use of memory strategy is not significant different between male and female students.
c. Compensation Strategy
From the table 4.9, the value of T for compensation strategy is 0.12 with probability (sig2 tailed) 0.90, because 0.90 > 0.05 it could be concluded that the use of memory strategy is not significant different between male and female students.
d. Metacognitive Strategy
From the table 4.9, the value of T for metacognitive strategy is 0.95 with probability (sig2 tailed) 0.34, because 0.34 > 0.05 it could be concluded that the use of memory strategy is not significant different between male and female students.
e. Affective Strategy
From the table 4.9, the value of T for affective strategy is 2.96 with probability (sig2 tailed) 0.04, because 0.04 < 0.05 it could be concluded that the use of memory strategy is a significant different between male and female students.
f. Social Strategy
From the table 4.9, the value of T for social strategy is 0.06 with probability (sig2 tailed) 0.94, because 0.94 > 0.05 it could be concluded
that the use of memory strategy is not significant different between male and female students.
B. Discussions
1. The Most Strategy Used by Male and Female in SMA Negeri 22 Makassar
Based on the findings, on the Table 4.1 - 4.6, it was shown the most frequently used of strategies by male and female students is medium category. The result in table 4.7, it indicates that compensation strategy become the most frequently used by male students, followed by metacognitive strategy, social strategy, affective strategy, cognitive strategy, memory strategy. And according to the result on Table 4.8, it was shown that the metacognitive strategy become the most frequently used by female students, followed by compensation strategy, affective strategy, social strategy, memory strategy and cognitive strategy. Tam (2013) also found metacognitive strategies are the most frequently used by students.
In addition, in an EFL learning context, the lack of opportunity to learn language in real life situation is another explanation for why metacognitive strategies were the most frequently used strategies by female students. The fact that the students of SMA Negeri 22 Makassar is a non speaking English and learners have limited opportunity to learn English outside the classroom might trigger students to depend heavily on metacognitive strategies that offer them enough opportunities to be
active, initiative and responsible for their own learning. In the present study, findings from individual metacognitive strategies revealed strong preferences among learners to find ways to be better in English, find as many ways as possible to use English, pay attention when someone is speaking English, look for people to speak English and notice mistakes they made in English to improve. And the reason why compensation strategy the most frequently used strategies by male students because compensation strategy could help learners comprehend or produce language despite their insufficient knowledge.
Memory and affective strategies are rated as the least frequently used strategies by male and female students. Although they ranked as the least frequently favored strategies, memory and affective strategies were both used in a medium frequency use, the data were supported by Tam (2013) and that memory strategies the least frequently used strategies by students. In this research, it is possible that students were not familiar with some of the memory-related items such as using flashcards to remember new words, physically act out new English words and using rhymes to remember new words; therefore, they reported employing fewer memory strategies compared with other strategies. Another possible reason for the infrequent use of memory strategies might be related to the teaching approaches in the EFL classrooms that have shifted from memorization, creative thinking and independent learning.
The reason that affective strategies were ranked as the least frequently
used by students may consider learning a language as an academic or an intellectual process only. They may not be aware of the power of affective strategies such as increasing motivation, lowering anxiety and having positive attitudes in learning a foreign language, and, therefore, ranked them as the least favored strategies.
2. The Difference Between Male and Female Students in the Use of Language Learning Strategies in SMA Negeri 22 Makassar.
In this research, a Sample T-Test indicated that there is no significant difference on memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social strategies preference in the use of language learning strategies between male and female students. Meanwhile, there is a significant difference on affective strategies preference in the use of language learning strategies between male and female.
Unlike Aslan (2009), found that there is a significant difference of the overall use of strategies between male and female students. However, this study reveals a significant difference between male and female students‟ language learning strategies preference use of affective strategies. In the same way, Zeynali (2012) and Anshari (2016) also found that there is a significant difference between male and female students in affective strategy preference. Female learners tend to pay more attention to their feelings. Another explanation for this finding is relate to the theories of psychology which mention that sensitivity,
empathy, nurturance and emotion are strong female traits, whereas aggression, dominance, assertiveness and emotional in expressiveness are male traits.
Finally, although this finding does not show a significant difference in the preference of strategies subgroups across gender, along with the findings of previous studies, a careful examination of the individual items showed that male students used less affective strategy than female students. This indicates their reluctance in sharing feelings.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the findings and discussion the previous chapter, the researcher would take conclusions as follows:
1. The most strategy used by male is compensation strategy (M=3.13), followed by metacognitive strategy (M=3.10), and social strategy (M = 3.08), affective strategy (M = 2.85), cognitive strategy (M = 2.81) and memory strategy (M=2.71). While frequently used by female is metacognitive strategy (M=3.17), followed by compensation strategy (M
=3.14), and affective strategy (M = 3.12), social strategy (M = 3.09), memory strategy (M = 2.79) and cognitive strategy (M=2.77). Both male and female students indicated that they are medium strategy users.
2. A sample T-Test indicated that there is no significant difference on memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social strategies preference in the use of language learning strategies. Meanwhile, there is a significant difference on affective strategies preference in the use of language learning strategies between male and female of the second grade at SMA Negeri 22 Makassar.
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, it can be delivered some suggestions go to:
1. Since the researcher mentioned answer the difference gender and language learning strategies. However the further research is needed to provide the better understand of their interconnection and conduct the test which will find their accuracy.
2. Since the finding of this research reveals that compensation strategy and metacognitive strategy were most frequently strategies used by students, it is suggested to the students to use the wide variety of learning strategies in order to achieve the learning outcome.
3. It may be interesting for the further researcher to conduct more comprehensive investigation on a wide range of the factors or variables affecting language learning strategies (LLS) used by English for Language especially the independent students.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ansyari, M. F., & Rahmi, H. 2016. A Comparison between Male and Female Students’ Language Learning Strategies Preference. Riau: Sultan Syarif University.
Aslan, O. 2009. The Role of Gender and Language Learning Strategies in Learning English. Unpublished Master’s thesis.
Dahlberg, L. 2016. Learning strategies for Reading and Listening in the Swedish National Syllabus for English: a Case Study of four English Language Teachers' Best Practices. Swedish: Helsingborg University.
Hardan, A. A. 2013. Language learning strategies: a general overview. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1712-1726.
Hendry. A. 2010. Populasi dan Sample. Https://teorionline. Wordpress.com. From http://www.researchgate.net/publication.Students. Retrieve on 10 June 2017.
Hidayat, S. A. 2012. The Power of Two Strategy in Teaching and Learning English at The Second Grade Students of MTsN Padang Batung Sungai Paring Kandangan Academic Year 2011-2012. Padang: Tarbiyah Faculty.
Jamiah, J., Mahmud, M., & Muhayyang, M. (2016). Do Male and Female Students Learn Differently?. Elt Worldwide, 2(2), 110-125.
Kulikova, O. 2015. Vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about vocabulary learning: a study of beginning university students of Russian in the United States. Rusia: University of Lowa
Lee, C. K. (2010). An Overview of Language Learning Strategies. Annual Review of Education, Communication & Language Sciences, 7.
Lestari, N. O. 2015. Language Learning Strategies of English of English Education Department of Fitk. Jakarta: Department Of English Education Faculty Of Tarbiyah And Teachers‟ Training Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University.
Liu, H. J., & Chang, C. H. (2013). A Study on Language Learning Strategy Use and Its Relation to Academic Self-concept: The Case of EFL Students in Taiwan. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 4(2).
Monsefi, M., & Hadidi, Y. 2015. Male and Female EFL Teachers‟ Politeness Strategies in Oral Discourse and their Effects on the Learning Process and Teacher-Student Interaction. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL).
Maskhurin, H., & Binta, D. 2014. Study on Vocabulary Learning Strategy Used by the Eighth Semester Students of English Department of IAIN
Tulungagung in the Academic Year 2013-2014. Tulungagung: IAIN TulungagungUniversity.
O‟Malley, J. 1995. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. : Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher should Know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R.L & Ehrman, M.E. 1995. Adults’ Languange Learning Strategies, in an Intensive Foreign Language Program in the United Studies System, 23(3), 359-386) Retrieved on 22 September 2015. From http://www.researchgate.net/publication.Students. Retrieve on 12 June 2017.
Puspitawati, H. 2013. Konsep, Teori dan Analisis Gender. Bogor: Departemen Ilmu Keluarga dan Kon-sumen Fakultas Ekologi Manusia Institut Pertanian.
Shmais, Wafa A. “Language Learning Strategy Use in Palestine.”http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej26/ej26a3/
[accessedat June 20th, 2017]
Sugiyono. 2013 Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, Dan R&D. Bandung, Indonesia: Alfabeta.
Tam, K. C. H. 2013. A Study on Language Learning Strategies (LLSs) of University Students in Hong Kong. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 11(2), 1-42.
Villa, Vivi Agusti. 2014. Populasi, Sampel, Besar Sampel dan Teknik. Retrieved from (villavava.blogspot.co.id/2014/07-populasi-sampel-besar-sampel- dan-teknik.html). Accessed on September 30th, 2017
Zare, P. 2012. Language learning Strategies among EFL/ESL Learners: A Review of Literature. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(5), 162-169.
Zeynali, S. 2012. Exploring the Gender Effect on EFL Learners' Learning Strategies. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(8), 1614.
Appendix 1
Background Questionnaire
1. Name :
...
2. Class :
...
3. Gender : ...
4. Age :
...
Checklist (√) the response that tells how true of you use it.
Statement
Never Usually Not
Sometimes Usually Always
Part A (Memory Strategy)
1. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English.
2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.
3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help remember the word.
4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used.
5. I use rhymes to remember new English words.
6. I use flashcards to remember new English words.
7. I physically act out new English words.
8. I review English lessons often.
9. I remember new English words or phrases by
remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign.
Part B (Cognitive Strategy) 10. I say or write new English words several times.
11. I try to talk like native English speakers.
12. I practice the sounds of English.
13. I use the English words I know in different ways.
14. I start conversations in English.
Saya biasa memulai percakapan dalam bahasa Inggris.
15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English.
16. I read for pleasure in English.
17. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English.
18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read carefully.
19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English.
20. I try to find patterns in English.
21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand.
22. I try not to translate word-for-word.
23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.
Part C (Compensation Strategy) 24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make
guesses.
25. When I can't think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.
26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.
27. I read English without looking up every new word.
28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.
29. If I can't think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.
Part D ( Metacognitive Strategy) 30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my
English.
31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.
32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English.
33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.
34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.
35. I look for people I can talk to in English.
36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.