The categorization of the students’ achiever levels was based on the students’ average speaking scores. The average scores were taken from their mid-term test and
final test scores. Students who got 5 excellent - 6 outstanding points were categorized as high achiever students, 3 good - 4 very good points were categorized as middle
achiever students, and 1 below average – 2 average points were categorized as low achiever students.
The aim of the students’ categorization was to know the various language learning strategies employed by these students in mastering speaking skill. The study involved the
8
th
semester students due to some reasons. First, they have studied English at least for two semesters in the university. Second, they were taking the three-month English for Job
Seekers program. Third, they are going to finish their study at the university and are going to search for jobs as soon as they finish their study.
In selecting the participants, this study made use purposeful sampling to gain the important information from the participants Alwasilah, 2002: 146. The selection of the
participants related to the participants’ categorization. The categorization of these participants will be presented in the discussion below.
3.4 The Participants’ Categorization Procedure
The categorization of the participants was based on the American Foreign Service Institute FSI interview procedure and scoring system. The American FSI interview
procedure requires two testers to rate the participants on a six-point scale for each of the following: pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The reason
of having two testers is to achieve a less subjective scoring Huge, 1996: 114.
Furthermore, to make the scoring more reliable, American FSI interview procedure requires recordings of the interview session.
The American FSI scoring system was employed in this study. The reason for using FSI scoring system was because it contains written descriptions of speaking
proficiency levels. Hughes 1996: 110 states that scoring will be valid and reliable only if: 1 it is clearly recognizable, 2 the appropriate descriptions of criteria levels are
written, and 3 there is more than one scorer for each performance. For the purpose of this study, the American FSI speaking proficiency descriptions
were modified and it was utilized during the mid-term test as well as the final test scoring stages. The researcher was assisted both in the mid-term test and final test scoring stages
by the other English language lecturer from the university where this study was conducted. Both the researcher and the other English language lecturer made use of the
American FSI speaking proficiency descriptions as the basis to score the students’ speaking ability. Moreover, the students’ interview sessions in the mid-term test and final
test stages were recorded. The speaking proficiency descriptions used in this study can be seen in appendix 1.
3.5 Data Collection
In qualitative research the trustworthiness and authenticity of the data collection play a very significant role Lincoln and Guba, 1985, as cited in Musthafa, 2000. In
collecting the data, the researcher employed questionnaires, and interviews.
3.5.1 Questionnaires
A questionnaire is not simply a list of questions or forms to be filled out. Oppenheim 1982:2 believes that questionnaire is a scientific instrument of measurement
and it is used for collecting particular kinds of data. As stated in Chapter I, the purposes of this study were to investigate the strategies
employed by high achiever, middle achiever, and low achiever students in mastering speaking skills, as well as to reveal the reasons why they employed those strategies.
The above questions would be answered by the items in the questionnaire. The questionnaire used was modified from Strategy Inventory for Language Learning SILL
Version 7.0 developed by Oxford 1990 especially for speakers of other languages learning English. The questionnaire covers six strategies, namely: memory, cognitive,
compensation, meta-cognitive, affective, and social strategies. There were 45 questions administered to the participants. Those questions were
used to investigate the students’ learning strategies in developing speaking skill. All of the questions numbers and strategies from the questionnaire can be seen from the table on
the next page followed by the key to understand the average of language learning strategies.
The Questions’ Numbers and Strategies from the Questionnaire
No Questions Number
The Questions were Used to Investigate 1
1 to 9 Memory Strategies
2 10 to 20
Cognitive Strategies 3
21 to 25 Compensation Strategies
4 26 to 33
Meta-cognitive Strategies 5
34 to 39 Affective Strategies
6 40 to 45
Social Strategies
Table 8 The Questions’ Numbers and Strategies from the Questionnaire
Key to Understand the Average of Language Learning Strategies
High Always or almost always used
4.5 to 5.0 Usually used
3.5 to 4.4 Medium
Sometimes used 2.5 to 3.4
Low Generally not used
1.5 to 2.4 Never or almost never used
1.0 to 1.4
Table 9 Key to Understand the Average of Language Learning Strategies
Besides SILL, the Background Questionnaire was included to provide additional information on students’ characteristics Oxford, 1990: 281. The Background
Questionnaire and SILL were tried out to the participant non sample respondents in order
to know their readability, their validity and reliability since they were originally written in English and were translated into Bahasa Indonesia for the purpose of the study; so that
the respondents would not find any difficulties in answering the items existed in the questionnaires.
From the tried out, some inputs had been encountered; and based on that, some items were revised and needed to be explained more at its administration in order that
there would not be any misunderstanding of what the items exactly meant. Before working on the questionnaires, the respondents were given some
explanation orally on how to answer the items and some words that might not be understood such as the phrases flashcard, rhymes. The respondents were also given
chances to notice any other words that might hindrance them in understanding the items and they were asked to deliver the questions.
In terms of the reliability and validity, the SILL has been used worldwide for students of second and foreign languages in settings such as university, school and
government. The internal consistency reliability of the SILL is .94 based on a 505-person sample Yang, 1992 and .92 based on a 315-person sample Watanabe, 1990. Content
validity is .99 based on independent raters Oxford, 1986; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995 as cited in Yang, 2007. These mean that the Oxford’s SILL questionnaires can be
considered valid and reliable. The questionnaires can be seen in appendix 2 Background Questionnaire and appendix 3 Strategy Inventory for Language Learning.
3.5.2 Interview
To validate the data from the questionnaire, this study utilized interviews. According to Creswell 2008: 226, by interviewing, the researcher will get useful
information that cannot be directly observed from the questionnaire. Interview permits participant to describe in detail some personal information and it has better control over
the type of information ‘filtered’ through the views of the interviewer. Fraenkel and Wallen 2007: 10 claim that interview is an important way for researcher to check the
accuracy. Open-ended questions were carried out in this study to investigate the speaking
strategies employed by the participants and the reasons why they employed those strategies. Patton 1987: 122 as well as Fraenkel and Wallen 2007: 374 propose that an
open-ended interview permits the person being interviewed to respond in his or her own terms, moreover, an open-ended interview has the advantage because it permits follow-up
by interviewer. The researcher utilized a tape recorder to record the interview because a tape recorder is part of indispensable equipment of the evaluator using qualitative method
Patton, 1987: 137. The researcher also made use of note-taking during the interview process. When a tape recorder is being used during the interview, notes will provide key
phrases, list of major points made by the respondents. Patton 1987: 138 points out that the key terms or word shown quotation marks that capture the interviewee’s own
language. The interviewees in this study were six students categorized as high, middle and low achievers. As mentioned earlier, students who got 5 excellent - 6 outstanding
points were categorized as high achievers, 3 good - 4 very good points were categorized as middle achiever students, and 1 below average – 2 average categorized
as low achiever students. Instances of the interview questions can be seen on appendix 4.
3.6 Data Analysis
The data from questionnaire were analyzed using Likkert scale from 1 to 5. Using this scale, the students were asked to answer the items on the questionnaire based on five
possible options namely: always, frequentlyusually, sometimes, rarely and never. Each answer has its own score starting form 5 point to 1 point.
Five point means that the participant always used the strategy, 4 point means that the participant usuallyfrequently used the strategy, 3 point means that the participant
sometimes used the strategy, two means that the participant rarely used the strategy, while one means that the participant never used the strategy mentioned on the
questionnaire. The scale of questionnaire items taken from Oxford 1990: 294 is presented as follows:
Frequency Scale point
Always 5
UsuallyFrequently 4
Sometimes 3
Rarely 2
Never 1
Table 10 The Scale of Questionnaire Items
The interviews were analyzed using five main approaches Kvale, 1996: 187 which are: categorization of meaning, condensation, structuring, interpreting of meaning
through narrative, interpretation of meaning and ad hoc method for generating meaning. The analysis was based on the research questions mentioned earlier: 1 the learning
strategies which were employed by high achievers, middle achievers, and low achiever students in mastering speaking skills, as well as 2 the reasons why they employed those
strategies.
3.7 Conclusion
