A CORRELATIONAL STUDY ON SPEAKING STRATEGIES USED BY ENGLISH AS FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNERS AND THEIR SPEAKING PROFICIENCY

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

UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH YOGYAKARTA 2016

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.

Grateful acknowledgment and my best appreciation goes to all lecturers who have contribution in completing Skripsi, Mrs. Puput Arfiandhani who is very beautiful, kind and friendly whenever I asked her for more information and helps, also her sincerely willing to be my expert judgment. Mrs. Maryam Sorohiti and Mrs. Fitria Rahmawati who are very enthusiastic and friendly to be my expert judgments. Mr. Puthut Ardianto and Mr. Suryanto who are my great examiner who generously help revising and reviewing the skripsi. All lecturers of PBI UMY who have taught and shared their enriching knowledge, motivations and experiences in learning English.

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

skripsi’s grammar. I am also grateful to the learners who participated in this study by filling out the questionnaire. Finally, too many thankful for my special best friend Farah Salsabila and class B whose names do not appear here, I am so greatly thankful have you all on a part in my life. Best thanks for creating memories with me during the learning phase, it means a lot to me.

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. **

** Remember that RESULT will never betray the PROCESS ** (As quoted by Prima Kurniawan)

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‟ speaking proficiency, this research explores the following research questions:

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 proficiency”. Chamot (2004) defined learning strategies as a decision of

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 learning, pacing or thinking about the learning process as it is taking place,

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

strategiesemploy 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

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Never 3 1.0 1 1

Rarely 15 4.8 4.8 5.8

Sometimes 90 28.8 28.8 34.6

Often 120 38.5 38.5 73.1

Always 84 26.9 26.9 100

Total 312 100 100

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

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Never 3 1.2 1.2 1.2

Rarely 17 6.5 6.5 7.7

Sometimes 82 31.5 31.5 39.2

Often 98 37.7 37.7 76.9

Always 60 23.1 23.1 100

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

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Never 2 0.8 0.8 0.8

Rarely 15 5.8 5.8 6.5

Sometimes 63 24.2 24.2 30.8

Often 119 45.8 45.8 76.5

Always 61 23.5 23.5 100

Total 260 100 100

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

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Never 1 0.4 0.4 0.4

Rarely 13 5 5 5.4

Sometimes 99 38.1 38.1 43.5

Often 95 36.5 36.5 80

Always 52 20 20 100

Total 260 100 100

Table 4.6

Frequency of Using Affective Strategies

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Never 5 1.9 1.9 1.9

Rarely 12 4.6 4.6 6.5

Sometimes 65 25 25 31.5

Often 108 41.5 41.5 73.1

Always 70 26.9 26.9 100

Total 260 100 100

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

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Rarely 1 0.4 0.4 0.4

Sometimes 48 18.5 18.5 18.8

Often 102 39.2 39.2 58.1

Always 109 41.9 41.9 100

Total 260 100 100

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

new word, using resources for receiving and sending messages, then, recognizing

and using formulas and patterns.

Compensation strategies. There is 3.85 mean value of learners using

compensation strategies in learning speaking, which means that many learners

applied these strategies through guessing the meaning of a new word with

gestures, synonym, and coining word. According to Al Buainain (2010) and

Pawapatcharaudom (2007), compensation strategies enable learners to prepare for

dealing with the missing word or meaning in the context during the process of

producing the target language with guessing. Among these strategies, guessing

has the lowest level of frequency usage. It may be caused that learners do not

actively involve during the learning processes, thus, they are lack references of

knowledge of the language in memory. As Oxford (1990) stated that “good language learners, when confronted with unknown expressions, make educated guesses”(p. 47).

Memory strategies. From the result, the least frequently used speaking strategies appear to be “memory strategies” at average value (3.71) even though these strategies might have powerful role to learning speaking. As revealed by

Pawapatcharaudom (2007), some research found that language learners rarely

employ memory strategies even though it can have strong contributors to

language learning. She also believed that learners do not realize how often and

how much they use these strategies. This result also supported the findings of

Al-Buainan (2010) and Liu (2004) who reported that memory strategies were the

memory strategies include several ways such as practicing and placing a new

word into a context, representing a picture in memory, associating or elaborating,

and using imagery. These strategies can assist the learners to cope with the

problems in remembering a new word, and to store new word in memory then

retrieve it when needed for communication.

Affective strategies. Based on the results, the affective strategies have high

mean value of 3.87. This indicates that EFL learners prefer to use affective

strategies during the process of learning speaking English through managing their

feeling or emotion, motivation and attitudes. Perhaps, the learners realized that

feeling or mood played important roles for supporting the process of language input, because it can influence the learners’ focus during the learning. In accordance with Pawapatcharaudom (2007), affective strategies are one of the

biggest influences on language learning success or failure when speaking up the

language, and good language learners are able to control their emotions and

attitudes toward learning. By organizing their feeling and attitudes, learners can

create effective and enjoyable in learning speaking, thus, they are able to lower

their anxiety during the speaking process. There were sub strategies or ways under

affective strategies namely lowering anxiety, encouraging oneself through

rewarding oneself and making positive statement, the last taking one’s emotional temperature such as sharing feeling in learning and listening to one’s body.

Social strategies. As illustrated in the results, it is worth pointing out that

among the six strategies represented in questionnaire distribution, social strategies

at 4.23 in Table 4.1. In line with Li (2010) that social strategies mainly concern on

interaction with people and found to be more popular for the learners. Indeed,

there were sub strategies under social strategies namely asking question for

clarification and correction which has occurred with the greatest values of using

the strategy to learn speaking with 57.7% as in (item30) and 55.8% as in (item 28)

from total respondent interpreted as always. It is evident that the result of asking

for clarification/verification obtained here are in exceptionally good agreement

with previous results on Hendriani (2013) stated that involving counterpart or

other people to deal with speaking problem including asking question for

clarification/verification have become one of the familiar strategies employed

from 24 strategies by college learners. As proposed by Oxford (1990) stated that “asking questions help learners get closer to intended meaning, and thus aids their understanding” (p.145). It is because this action provides more benefit in

enhancing learners’ knowledge and for increasing the learners’ confidence to be more active in gaining input and producing the target language.

Learners’ Speaking Proficiency. The researcher also found the data of learners’ speaking proficiency which was measured by the lecturer of Listening and Speaking for Academic Purposes in second semester. As can be seen from Table 4.8 that the value of mean on learners’ speaking proficiency was identified with value 80.36. It can be summarized that learners batch 2015 have a very good

speaking proficiency. This finding eventually become an interesting part because

they were freshmen who had very good level of speaking skill. Perhaps, they

enthusiastic to communicate in English and focus their attention on how to

reinforce their speaking ability.

Correlation on Speaking Strategies that Most Frequently Used by EFL learners and Their Speaking Proficiency. The result of the correlational

analysis on the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL learners and their

speaking proficiency using Pearson Product Moment correlation (r) are

represented by Table 4.11. The coefficient value of correlation in this study was (r

= 0.016), it means that there was positive and significance correlation. While

Table 4.10 showed the list of criteria correlation for low or weak correlation on

0.20-0.399 and very high correlation is on 0.80-1.00. Since the correlation value

of this study was on 0.016, thus, this means that there was a very low correlation

on the speaking strategies that most frequently used by EFL learners and their

speaking proficiency. It is conceivable that the increased of the social strategies

used will be followed very weakly but significantly by the increased speaking

proficiency of the learners. On the other words, the frequency usage of strategies

and English proficiency were positively linked to each other and other similar

findings (Liu, 2004; Maldonado, 2015; Radwan, 2010).

To sum up that the correlation result shows there was a positive and

significant correlation on social strategies and speaking proficiency, hence the

alternate hypothesis (Ha) was accepted which indicates there is correlation on the most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL learners and their speaking

Chapter V

Conclusion and Recommendation

In this last chapter, the researcher presents summary of the research

finding generally and followed by the recommendation of the future research on

speaking strategies.

Conclusions

The main objectives of this study is to investigate the correlation on the

most frequent speaking strategies used by EFL learners of EED UMY batch 2015

and their speaking proficiency. For this purpose, speaking strategies questionnaire

consisted of 31 items with five-Likert Scale answer were administered to 52 EFL

learners. Afterwards, the secondary data have been collected through speaking test

providing by the lecturer. The data gathered was analyzed by using Descriptive

statistic and Pearson Correlation. The first research question attempts to reveal the

speaking strategies employed by EFL learners of EED UMY batch 2015 using the

speaking strategies questionnaire. Considerable insight has been gained

concerning the use of speaking strategies among EFL learners. Interestingly, this

study indicated that the mean average of overall strategies are consistently high

more than 3.5 mean value, which means that most of the learners applied both

direct and indirect strategies in their learning. This is particularly noticeable in the

case of speaking strategies, that the most favored strategies as perceived by EFL

learners was social strategies with highest mean value of strategies at value 4.23

context. Social strategies mainly concern on interaction with people and found to

be more familiar among the learners (Li, 2010). It seems that the learners are

preferred to involve themselves in the real interaction with other people in order

to improve their learning in speaking English such as asking questions for

clarifications and corrections, and cooperating with other. Contrary to the result of

memory strategies, these strategies are the least mean values among six

categories. It is in accordance with previous study by Javid et. Al (2012),

Al-Buainan (2010), and Liu (2004) which reported that memory strategies are the

least preferred of speaking strategies used by EFL learners in learning speaking.

For the second research question of” What are the speaking proficiency of EFL learners at EED UMY in Listening and Speaking for Academic Purposes

class?” The findings revealed that the majority of learners have very good speaking proficiency. The surprising data eventually might be caused learners

have more access and chance to learn, use, and practice English as well. It is

noticeably accomplished by Skandari, Behjat, and Kargar (2015) that applying

learning strategies in speaking or communication could be advantageous for

learners to improve their speaking skill.

The other aim of this study is to scrutinize the correlation on the most

frequent speaking strategies used by EFL learners and their speaking proficiency.

The results presents the value of coefficient correlation in Pearson Product

Moment (r) = 0.016. Therefore, it can be inferred that the correlation on both

variables was considerably very low or very weak and significant correlation. It

batch 2015 are associated with their speaking proficiency, which means that they

link each other. This result is in line with previous researchers (Javid et.al, 2012;

Liu, 2004; Maldonado, 2015; Radwan, 2010). Correlate with Larenaz (2011) that “the importance of knowing speaking strategies can be regarded as a significant issue for improving students’ oral communication skill” (p. 95). It is reasonable to conclude that the hypothesis of Ha was accepted and Ho was rejected.

Recommendation

This section sets out the research implication from overall finding of this research.

Significance contributions of this study are indicated to larger population such as

for the researcher, learners, lecturers, English Education Department, and other

researchers.

For the researcher. The importance of knowing the social strategies can

be a superb insight on enriching the researchers’ knowledge of communication and to foster oral communicative skill by applying various strategies that are

valuable for the researcher to improve her speaking ability. The researcher can use

the finding by encouraging her speaking ability through involving herself to the

real social communication and cooperating with others to practice communication

the target language.

For learners. The study concluded that the patterns of speaking strategies

can be applied autonomously by learners in order to encourage learners’ speaking development. The researcher suggests that learners have to be able to employ the

speaking strategies in their learning, hence, the more often use of the speaking

Statement25

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Sometimes 12 23.1 23.1 23.1

Often 23 44.2 44.2 67.3

Always 17 32.7 32.7 100.0

Total 52 100.0 100.0

Statement26

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Rarely 2 3.8 3.8 3.8

Sometimes 18 34.6 34.6 38.5

Often 20 38.5 38.5 76.9

Always 12 23.1 23.1 100.0

Total 52 100.0 100.0

Statement27

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Sometimes 8 15.4 15.4 15.4

Often 28 53.8 53.8 69.2

Always 16 30.8 30.8 100.0

Statement28

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Sometimes 6 11.5 11.5 11.5

Often 17 32.7 32.7 44.2

Always 29 55.8 55.8 100.0

Total 52 100.0 100.0

Statement29

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Sometimes 14 26.9 26.9 26.9

Often 23 44.2 44.2 71.2

Always 15 28.8 28.8 100.0

Total 52 100.0 100.0

Statement30

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Sometimes 5 9.6 9.6 9.6

Often 17 32.7 32.7 42.3

Always 30 57.7 57.7 100.0

Statement31

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Rarely 1 1.9 1.9 1.9

Sometimes 15 28.8 28.8 30.8

Often 17 32.7 32.7 63.5

Always 19 36.5 36.5 100.0

Appendix H

Percentages of Using Strategies Number

of Item Categories

Frequency Percentages

Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

1

Metacognitive

28.8% 51.9% 19.2% 0.0% 0.0%

2 50.0% 34.6% 11.5% 3.8% 0.0%

3 11.5% 15.4% 51.9% 19.2% 1.9%

4 26.9% 32.7% 34.6% 3.8% 1.9%

5 25.0% 40.4% 30.8% 1.9% 1.9%

6 19.2% 55.8% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Mean 26.9% 38.5% 28.8% 4.8% 1.0%

7

Cognitive

21.2% 38.5% 32.7% 7.7% 0.0%

8 23.1% 28.8% 36.5% 9.6% 1.9%

9 30.8% 42.3% 23.1% 3.8% 0.0%

10 25.0% 42.3% 21.2% 7.7% 3.8%

11 15.4% 36.5% 44.2% 3.8% 0.0%

Mean 23.1% 37.7% 31.5% 6.5% 1.2%

12

Compensation

32.7% 46.2% 13.5% 7.7% 0.0%

13 25.0% 40.4% 30.8% 3.8% 0.0%

14 25.0% 50.0% 23.1% 1.9% 0.0%

16 19.2% 48.1% 26.9% 5.8% 0.0%

Mean 23.5% 45.8% 24.2% 5.8% 0.8%

17

Memory

17.3% 36.5% 38.5% 5.8% 1.9%

18 19.2% 40.4% 34.6% 5.8% 0.0%

19 25.0% 36.5% 32.7% 5.8% 0.0%

20 19.2% 42.3% 36.5% 1.9% 0.0%

21 19.2% 26.9% 48.1% 5.8% 0.0%

Mean 20.0% 36.5% 38.1% 5.0% 0.4%

22

Affective

34.6% 36.5% 23.1% 5.8% 0.0%

23 28.8% 51.9% 19.2% 0.0% 0.0%

24 15.4% 36.5% 25.0% 13.5% 9.6%

25 32.7% 44.2% 23.1% 0.0% 0.0%

26 23.1% 38.5% 34.6% 3.8% 0.0%

Mean 26.9% 41.5% 25.0% 4.6% 1.9%

27

Social

30.8% 53.8% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0%

28 55.8% 32.7% 11.5% 0.0% 0.0%

29 28.8% 44.2% 26.9% 0.0% 0.0%

30 57.7% 32.7% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0%

31 36.5% 32.7% 28.8% 1.9% 0.0%

Appendix I Learners' Speaking Score

Learners' Speaking Score

No Name Speaking

Score No Name

Speaking

Score No Name

Speaking Score

1 A 80.86 19 S 54.00 36 AK 81.54

2 B 86.04 20 T 79.17 37 AL 82.04

3 C 87.84 21 U 84.71 38 AM 81.60

4 D 81.75 22 V 81.69 39 AN 80.93

5 E 82.11 23 W 71.10 40 AO 81.15

6 F 85.78 24 X 82.51 41 AP 79.49

7 G 83.87 25 Y 83.94 42 AQ 90.49

8 H 82.30 26 Z 80.11 43 AR 81.21

9 I 84.99 27 AB 85.16 44 AS 84.26

10 J 85.61 28 AC 79.09 45 AT 86.60

11 K 84.95 29 AD 80.00 46 AU 81.71

12 L 52.65 30 AE 0.00 47 AV 86.60

13 M 83.56 31 AF 87.82 48 AW 90.43

14 N 80.97 32 AG 84.43 49 AX 76.43

15 O 81.88 33 AH 79.75 50 AY 84.21

16 P 89.59 34 AI 77.49 51 AZ 89.60

17 Q 81.44 35 AJ 80.38 52 BC 84.38