THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES OF READING AND STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING ENGLISH AND INDONESIA AT THIRD YEAR STUDENTS OF SMAN 1 TERBANGGI BESAR

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING

STRATEGIES OF READING AND STUDENTS

ACHIEVEMENT IN READING ENGLISH AND INDONESIAN

AT THIRD YEAR STUDENTS OF SMAN 1

TERBANGGI BESAR

DESI FITRI

Script

Submitted In A Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For S-1 Degree

in

The Language and Arts Education Department Of Faculty Of Teacher Training And Education

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

TEACHING TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY

BANDAR LAMPUNG

2015

ABSTRACT

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES OF READING AND STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING ENGLISH AND INDONESIA AT THIRD YEAR STUDENTS

OF SMAN 1 TERBANGGI BESAR

Desi Fitri

The objective of this research was to find out the correlation of learning strategies in reading toward reading achievement in Indonesian and English Subject. This research used quantitative research in which the writer analyzed and described students language learning strategies used in Indonesian and English lesson on language learning strategies questionnaire. The populations of this research were the third year students of SMAN 1 Terbanggi Besar, and randomly class XII IPA 1 and XII IPS 4 that consisted of 59 students as the sample. The data were collected through questionnaire, reading test and documentation in form of score. The writer administered questionnaire to classify students’ strategies in Indonesian which consisted of 20 questions about cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies and social strategies. The result of the research shows that students mostly used metacognitive strategies as language learning strategies in reading Indonesian and English. Students score also shows that they used some strategies to help them in learning both languages. It was found that only the mean scores of two learning strategies preference categories, cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies learning, being 3.36 and 3.38, 3.55 and 3.62, 3.07 and 3.19 respectively, fitted into the major learning strategies preferences category.

iii

CURRICULUM VITAE

The name of the writer is Desi Fitri. She was born in Bandarjaya, on December 25th 1990. She is the fifth of the six daughters of happy Moslem couple, Usman Chaniago and Rosneli.

She entered elementary school SD N 1 Bandarjaya, Central Lampung in 1996 and graduated in 2002. She continued her study at SMP N 1 Poncowati, Terbanggi Besar, Lampung Tengah, and graduated in 2005. After graduation, she enrolled at SMA N 1 Terbanggi Besar, Lampung Tengah and graduated in 2008

She was registered as an S-1 degree student of English Education Study Program, The Faculty of Teacher Training and Education (FKIP) of Lampung University in 2008. She accomplished her KKN at Adiluwih village, a small village in Pringsewu and Teacher Training Program (PPL) at SMP N 2 Adiluwih in 2011.

From 2010 – 2011, she was appointed as a girl leader of Racana Puteri Silamaya, Pramuka Unila. She was active in Students Scout in Racana Raden Intan Puteri Silamaya University of Lampung until now.

v MOTTO

“EVERYBODY IS A GENIUS, BUT IF YOU JUDGE A FISH BY ITS ABILITY TO CLIMB A TREE, IT WILL LIVE ITS WHOLE LIFE

BELIEVING THAT IT IS STUPID” (ALBERT EINSTEIN)

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Praise the Almighty God, Allah SWT for His blessing and mercy that the writer is eventually able to finish this script, entitled “The Correlation between Language Learning Strategies of Reading and Students' Achievement in Reading English and Indonesian at Third Year students of SMA N 1 Terbanggi Besar”. It is presented as a partial fulfilment for S-1 degree in English Education Program, Language and Arts Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Lampung University.

Among many individuals who gave generous suggestion for improving this script, first of all the writer would like to express her sincere gratitude and respect to her first advisor and her academic advisor during the writer’s college time, Prof. Ag. Bambang Setiyadi, M.A., Ph.D., and also her second advisor, Drs.Sudirman, M.Pd., who had contributed and given their evaluation, comments, suggestion during the completion of this script. The writer also would like to express her deepest gratitude and respect to Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph. D., for his criticisms and input until this script is finished.

Furthermore, the writer wants to extend her deep appreciation to Supriyanto,S.Pd. and Mrs. Fitri S.Pd., as the English teachers of SMA N 1 Terbanggi Besar,

vii

Most importantly her special gratitude should be dedicated to her beloved father, Usman Chaniago and her beloved mother, Rosneli who always give their prayers, love and support for every path the writer chose. Her thankfulness is also due to her elder sisters and brothers: Suhendra, Wiwit Oktaria, Mulyawan Dina Siska and Mustika Sari, for their encouragement and also my beautiful nephews Rania Syifa Salsabila and Farhan Faiz, for their beautiful smiles.

Thankfullness is also due to her beloved comrades English ’08: Mei Dianita, Deva, Purwanti, Devina, Nisa, Septi, Siska, Milah, Kiki, Eni, Atin, Mirwan, Dito, Gestiana, Arizka, Novi Fitri. Thank you so much for being such a great companion along the way in finishing this script. And, she would extend her gratitude to her beloved roommate and friends: Wulan, and Galih. Moreover she extends out her gratitude to her beloved family in Racana Raden Intan-Puteri Silamaya University of Lampung.

Last but not least, appreciation is also extended to Mrs. Martawati and Mr. Djohan Maher who always enforces and helps the writer to accomplish her script. Hopefully, this script would give a positive contribution to the educational development or to those who want to carry out further research.

Bandar Lampung, 22 April 2014

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

TITLE ... i

ABSTRACT ... ii

COVER ... iii

APPROVAL ... iv

ADMISSION ... v

CURRICULUM VITAE ... vi

DEDICATON ... vii

MOTTO ... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xi

APPENDICES ... xiii

TABLES ... xiv

I. INTRODUCTION ……….….

1.1Background of the Problem ……….. 1.2Formulation of the Problem ……….. 1.3Objective of the Research ………. 1.4Uses of the Research ……….

1.5Scope of the Research ………...

1.6Definition of Terms ………...

II. FRAME OF THEORIES ……….

2.1Definition of Language Learning Strategies ………... 2.2The Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies ……… 2.3Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies ...………... … 2.3.1 O’Malley’s Classification of Language Learning Strategies…...

2.3.2 Rubin’s Taxonomy ………..

2.3.3 Oxford’s Classification of Language Learning Strategies ……... 2.3.4 Setiyadi’s Taxonomies ……….………... 2.4Research on Language Learning Strategies ………..…... 2.5Concept of Reading ……….………... 2.6Concept of Reading Comprehension ... 2.7Data Collection Techniques for Language Learning Strategies ………

a. Observation ………..

b. Diary Writing………

c. Interviews………...

d. Questionnaires……… 1 1 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 12 15 16 20 23 24 24 25 25 26

xii

III. RESEARCH METHOD ………

3.1Research Design ………

3.2Research Procedure ………...

3.3Population and Sample ...…….……… 3.4Research Instrument ………...….………...

3.4.1 Questionnaire……….

3.4.2 Reading Comprehension Test………. 3.5Data Analysis...………. 3.6Validity of the Instrument...

a.LLSQ………..

b.Achievement Test …………..……….

3.6 Reliability of the instrument………... a. Questionnaire……….. b. Test Achievement………... 3.7Data Collection Procedures ………..

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……….

4.1Findings of the LLSQ ……….

4.2Results of the Achievement Test ……… 4.3The Finding of the Relationship between L1 achievement and

Learning Strategies ……….

4.4Discussions of the Findings ………

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ………..

5.1Conclusion ………..

5.2Suggestion ………..

REFERENCES ………. APPENDICES ……….. 29 29 30 30 30 31 33 33 34 35 36 37 37 38 39 40 40 46 47 49 56 56 56 58 61

xiv

APPENDICES

Appendix Page

1. LLSQ in English ... 61

2. LLSQ in Bahasa ... 63

3. Result of LLSQ for Reading Bahasa ... 64

4. Result LLSQ for Reading English ... 65

5. Reading comprehension test ... 68

6. Key Answer for reading test ... 79

7. Test Kemampuan membaca ... 80

8. Key answer of bahasa Indonesia ... 85

9. Nilai Reading Test... 86

10.Sample LLSQ class IPA ... 87

11.Sample Reading Test class IPA ... 88

12.Sample reading test bahasa class IPA ... 94

13.Sample LLSQ social class ... 99

14.Sample reading test bahasa social class ... 100

15.Sample reading test social class ... 107

16.Students score and learning strategies data ... 113

17.Table of total strategies ... 115

I. INTRODUCTION

In the purpose of introducing this research, this chapter discusses several points. Those are (1) background of the problem, (2) formulation of the problem, (3) objective of the research, (4) use of the research, (5) scope of the research, and (6) definition of terms.

1.1. Background of the Problem

English plays very important role in the world communication. Because of that fact, English has become a compulsory subject in Indonesia, which is learned by elementary school until university. Even though it has become a compulsory subject, the success of English learning in Indonesia is still questionable. Then, language learning is one of the most important needs and it has become an essential component in people‟s lives. Because of numerous reasons such as studying at an English medium university or living in a foreign country, people all over the world are trying to learn a second, even a third language.

From the early 1970s on some researchers in the field of language strategies have been trying to find out teaching methods, classroom techniques, and instructional materials that will promote better language instruction. However, in spite of all these efforts there has been a growing concern that learners have not progressed as much as it was anticipated. Because there are considerable individual differences

in language learning such as gender, age, social status, motivation, attitude, aptitude, culture, etc.; what works for one learner might not work for another. Therefore, none of the method and technique proved that they can work all the time, in all classes, with all students. As a result, it might be appropriate to comply with Grenfell and Harris‟ (1999: 10) statement that “Methodology alone can never be a solution to language learning. Rather it is an aid and suggestion”.

Having reached this conclusion some other people in the field changed the focus from the language teaching methodology to the language learner and the variables that affect language learning. This shift of the focal point has led to an increase in the number of studies carried out regarding learner characteristics and foreign or second language learning. Language Learning Strategies (LLS) have been one of the most popular aspects researchers have focused on. Some studies have shown that learning strategies refer to the behavior that the students use. Wenden (1987:6) states that learner strategies refer to language learning behaviors that learners actually engage in learn regulate the learning of second language. These language learning behaviors have been called strategies. It means that the strategies are able to change the learners‟ behavior especially positive behavior. But in the real condition we can see many language students were use passive and accustomed to learning only from the teacher.

The previous research done by Widiono (2007) also found the same problems. Some factors that caused students‟ difficulties in comprehending the text which he found in his research were: students‟ lack of vocabulary and grammar, students‟ interest in the reading text, teachers‟ disability in guiding and managing their class

and inappropriate reading strategy. In order to minimize the problem above, this research will be focused on how to create situation where the students can engage the reading process.

Language instructors are often frustrated by the fact that students do not automatically transfer the strategies they use when reading in their native language to reading in a language they are learning. Instead, they seem to think reading means starting at the beginning and going word by word, stopping to look up every unknown vocabulary item, until they reach the end. When they do this, students are relying exclusively on their linguistic knowledge, a bottom-up strategy. One of the most important functions of the language instructor, then, is to help students move past this idea and use top-down strategies as they do in their native language.

Effective language instructors show students how they can adjust their reading behavior to deal with a variety of situations, types of input, and reading purposes. They help students develop a set of reading strategies and match appropriate strategies to each reading situation. Strategies that can help students read more quickly and effectively include:

 Previewing: reviewing titles, section headings, and photo captions to get a sense of the structure and content of a reading selection

 Predicting: using knowledge of the subject matter to make predictions about content and vocabulary and check comprehension; using knowledge of the text type and purpose to make predictions about discourse structure; using knowledge about the author to make predictions about writing style, vocabulary, and content

 Skimming and scanning: using a quick survey of the text to get the main idea, identify text structure, confirm or question predictions

 Guessing from context: using prior knowledge of the subject and the ideas in the text as clues to the meanings of unknown words, instead of stopping to look them up

 Paraphrasing: stopping at the end of a section to check comprehension by restating the information and ideas in the text

When language learners use reading strategies, they find that they can control the reading experience, and they gain confidence in their ability to read the language.

Based on researcher‟s experience when she took the field practice program or PPL at SMPN2 Adiluwih, 2011-2012 she found that one of the problems faced by the students was that they often found difficulty in comprehending the text. They like to be told what to do, and they only do what is clearly essential to get good score even if they will failed to develop useful skills in the learning process. According to Wixson et. al. (1987) reading is the process of constructing meaning through the dynamic interaction among: (1) the reader's existing knowledge; (2) the information suggested by the text being read; and (3) the context of the reading situation. Unfortunately, many students had a lack ability related their existing knowledge, the information from the text and the context of the reading situation because they do not know about the subject or topic of material that they are reading. Then, as the last choice, they ignore learn about the subject in the passage or text.

Based on those explanations, the researcher wanted to find out the effect of learning strategies toward reading achievement of the student in science class. This is very important to be done in order to improve the success of English teaching learning, especially in SMA Negeri 1 Terbanggi Besar. The reason when SMA Negeri 1 Terbanggi Besar was taken in this research because the researcher

graduated from this school and the school represented other school in Lampung Tengah. Hopefully the result of this research can be used to improve the success of English teaching and learning, especially in SMA Negeri 1 Terbanggi Besar.

This study aimed at investigating the individual learning strategies of learners prefer to use and to investigate a relationship between language learning strategies and learning achievement especially in reading comprehension, are they any relation between language strategies which used by the students and the scores they achieve in Bahasa subject especially in reading Bahasa, this research is entitled The Correlation of Students Learning Strategies in EFL toward Students Reading Achievement in First Language at the Third Year of Senior High School.

1.2. Formulation of the Problem

Based on the background above, the researcher formulates the problem as follows: 1. Is there any correlation between first language strategy and first Language

achievement?

2. Is there any correlation between students‟ second language learning strategy and students reading achievement in English language learning? 3. Is there any correlation between first language learning achievement and

second language learning achievement?

1.3. Objective of the Research

Based on the problem above, the objectives of the research are:

1. To find out the strategies that students use when they are learn foreign language

2. To find out the whether there is correlation between languages learning strategies and first language achievement.

3. To find out the whether there is any difference effect between learning strategies in EFL students‟ and in First Language achievement.

1.4. Uses of the Research The uses of the research are:

1. Theoretically, it can be used to verify the previous research dealing with the theories of learning strategies and used as references for those who will conduct further research.

2. Practically, this research the information to the researcher and English teachers about strategies used by the students in English reading subject. It is expected that the teachers will direct the learners to find their appropriate strategies and to use their own strategies in learning strategies especially in reading comprehension. After knowing the strategies used, it is expected the students will employ the most suitable strategies to face their problem in reading comprehension.

1.5. Scope of the Research

This quantitative research conducted in class 12 at SMAN 1 Terbanggi Besar, Lampung Tengah. The students of class 12 were chosen because students already learn English as a foreign language for several years and included in pre intermediate level students. The researcher chooses this school because the school represents senior high school which is located in the region and represent as

national standard school. Therefore it is expected that the student have well basically when learned English lesson.

The researcher then classified their learning strategies based on three broad categories: Cognitive, Metacognitive and Social Strategies. Having finishing classifying students‟ language learning strategies, the researcher will analyze the difference of student result based on the strategy that they used to achieve reading comprehension and the correlation with first language achievement based three criteria above.

1.6. Definition of Terms

a. Reading comprehension is a concept of reading as the application of a set of isolated skills such as finding the main ideas, identifying cause and effect relationships, comparing and constructing, and sequencing (National Reading Panel, 2000).

b. Strategy is defined as „a plan designed to achieve a particular long-term aim” (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2008), or it can be defined as “a detailed plan for achieving success in situations such as war, politics, business, industry or sport, or the skill of planning for such situations” (Cambridge International dictionary of English, 1995).

c. Language Learning Strategies “Learning Strategies are specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (Oxford, 1990).

II. FRAME OF THEORIES

This chapter will discuss several points. (1) definition of Language Learning Strategies, (2) Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies, (3) Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies, (4) Research on Language Learning Strategies, (5) Concept of Reading, (6) Concept of Reading Comprehension, (7) Data Collection Technique for Language Learning Strategies.

2.1 Definition of Language Learning Strategies

Within the field of foreign/second language teaching, the term language learning strategies has been defined by key researchers in the field. Tarone (1983: 67) defined a learning strategy as “an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language –to incorporate these into one’s interlanguage competence”. Later Rubin (1987: 22) stated that learning strategies “are strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning directly”. O’Malley and Chamot (1990: 1) define learning strategies as “the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information”. Oxford (1990: 8) expands the definition of learning strategies and defines them as “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations”.

2.2 The Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies

When analyzing the learning strategies it can be seen that different writers use different terminology to refer to the strategies. For example, Wenden and Rubin (1987) use the term “learner strategies”, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) use the term “learning strategies”, and Oxford (1990) uses the term “language learning strategies.” Even though the terminology used for language learning strategies is not uniform among the scholars in the field, there are a number of basic characteristics accepted by them. Oxford (1990) summarizes her view of LLS by listing twelve key features below as they:

• Contribute to the main goal, communicative competence. • Allow learners to become more self-directed.

• Expand the role of teachers. • Are problem oriented.

• Are specific actions taken by the learner

• Involve many aspects of the learner, not just the cognitive. • Support learning both directly and indirectly.

• Are not always observable. • Are often conscious. • Can be taught. • Are flexible.

• Are influenced by a variety of factors.

(Oxford, 1990: 9) 2. 3 Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies

Many scholars in the field such as Rubin (1987), O’Malley and Chamot (1990), Oxford (1990), etc. have classified language-learning strategies. However, most of these attempts to classify LLS reflect more or less the same categorization without any drastic changes. Below Rubin’s (1987), O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990), Oxford’s (1990) taxonomies of LLS will be handled.

2.3.1 O’Malley’s Classification of Language Learning Strategies

O’Malley et al. (1985: 582-584) divide language-learning strategies into three main subcategories: Metacognitive Strategies, Cognitive Strategies, and Socio affective Strategies. It can be stated that Metacognitive Strategy is a term which refers to the executive skills, strategies which require planning for learning, thinking about the learning processes that is taking place, monitoring of one’s production or comprehension, and evaluating learning after an activity is completed. Strategies such as self-monitoring, self-evaluation, advance organizers, self-management, and selective attention can be placed among the main metacognitive strategies.

When compared to Metacognitive Strategies, it can be stated that Cognitive Strategies are not only more limited to specific learning tasks but they also involve more direct manipulation of the learning material itself. Among the most important cognitive strategies are repetition, elaboration, contextualization, auditory representation, transfer, etc.

Regarding the Socio affective Strategies, it can be stated that they involve interaction with another person. They are generally considered to be applicable to various tasks. Questioning for clarification, cooperation with others to solve a problem, rephrasing, and self-talk are some examples of socio affective strategies.

2.3.2 Rubin’s Taxonomy

Rubin (1987), who is the pioneer in the field of LLS, draws a distinction between strategies directly contributing to learning and those contributing indirectly.

According to Rubin (1987), there are three types of strategies used by learners that contribute directly or indirectly to language learning.

The first category, Learning Strategies, consists of two main types Cognitive and Metacognitive Learning Strategies. They are thought to be strategies directly contributing to the language system constructed by the learner. Cognitive Learning Strategies (CLS) refer to the steps or processes used in learning or problem-solving tasks that require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials. Rubin (1987) identified six main CLS directly contributing to language learning: Clarification/Verification, Guessing/Inductive Inference, Deductive Reasoning, Practice, Memorization, and Monitoring.

Metacognitive Learning Strategies (MLS) are used to supervise, control or self-direct language learning. They involve a variety of processes as planning, prioritizing, setting goals, and self-management.

The second category consists of Communication Strategies, which are less directly related to language learning because they focus on the process of participating in a conversation and getting meaning across or clarifying what the speaker intended. These strategies are used by speakers when they are confronted with misunderstanding by a co-speaker.

Social Strategies comprise the last category, which are manipulated when the learners are engaged in tasks that afford them opportunities to be exposed to and practice their knowledge. Even though these strategies provide exposure to the

target language, they contribute indirectly to the obtaining, storing, retrieving, and using of language (Rubin and Wenden, 1987: 23-27).

2.3.3 Oxford’s Classification of Language Learning Strategies

Among all the existing learning strategy taxonomies Oxford (1990) provides the most extensive classification of LLS developed so far. However, when analyzed, her classification is not something completely different from the previously discussed ones. On the contrary, Oxford’s taxonomy overlaps with O’Malley’s (1985) taxonomy to a great extent. For instance, the Cognitive Strategies category in O’Malley’s classification seems to cover both the Cognitive and Memory Strategies in Oxford’s taxonomy. Moreover, while O’Malley puts socio affective strategies in one category, Oxford deals with them as two separate categories. Yet, a significant difference in Oxford’s classification is the addition of the compensation strategies, which have not been treated in any of the major classification systems earlier.

Generally speaking, Oxford’s taxonomy consists of two major LLS categories, the Direct and Indirect Strategies. Direct strategies are those behaviors that directly involve the use of the target language, which directly facilitates language learning. Oxford (1990) resembles the direct strategies to the performers in a stage play, whereas she takes after the indirect strategies to the director of the same play. While the performers work with the language itself, they also work with the director who is responsible for the organization, guidance, checking, corrections, and encouragement of the performers. These two groups work hand in hand with each other and they are inseparable.

Direct strategies are divided into three subcategories: Memory, Cognitive and Compensation Strategies. Memory Strategies: Oxford and Crookall (1989: 404) define them as “techniques specifically tailored to help the learner store new information in memory and retrieve it later”. They are particularly said to be useful in vocabulary learning which is “the most sizeable and unmanageable component in the learning of any language” (Oxford, 1990: 39). Memory strategies are usually used to link the verbal with the visual, which is useful for four reasons:

1. The mind’s capacity for storage of visual information exceeds its capacity for verbal material.

2. The most efficiently packaged chunks of information are transferred to long-term memory through visual images.

3. Visual images might be the most effective mean to aid recall of verbal material.

4. Visual learning is preferred by a large proportion of learners

(Oxford, 1990: 40) Cognitive Strategies: The second groups of direct strategies are the cognitive strategies, which are defined as “skills that involve manipulation and transformation of the language in some direct way, e.g. through reasoning, analysis, note taking, functional practices in naturalistic settings, formal practice with structures and sounds, etc.” (Oxford and Crookall, 1989: 404).

Cognitive strategies are not only used for mentally processing the language to receive and send messages, they are also used for analyzing and reasoning. What is more, they are used for structuring input and output. However, if learners overuse the cognitive strategies, this might cause them to make mistakes when they generalize the rules they have learned without questioning them, (that is, when they over generalize them) or when they transfer expressions from one

language to another, generally from the mother tongue to the target language (that is, when negative transfer occurs) (Oxford, 1990).

Compensation Strategies: Compensation strategies help learners to use the target language for either comprehension or production in spite of the limitations in knowledge. They aim to make up for a limited repertoire of grammar and, particularly vocabulary. When learners are confronted with unknown expressions, they make use of guessing strategies, which are also known as inferencing. When learners do not know all the words, they make use of a variety of clues either linguistic or non-linguistic so as to guess the meaning. Compensation strategies are not only manipulated in the comprehension of the target language, but they are used in producing it. They enable earners to produce spoken or written expressions in the target language without complete knowledge of it. The second group of strategies, that is, indirect strategies, consists of three subcategories as well: Metacognitive, Affective, and Social Strategies.

Metacognitive Strategies: Metacognitive strategies are defined as “behaviors used for centering, arranging, planning, and evaluating one’s learning. These ‘beyond the cognitive’ strategies are used to provide ‘executive control over the learning process’ (Oxford and Crookall, 1989: 404). Metacognitive strategies go beyond the cognitive devices and provide a way for learners to coordinate with their own learning process. They provide guidance for the learners who are usually “overwhelmed by too much ‘newness’ – unfamiliar vocabulary, confusing rules, different writing systems, seemingly inexplicable social customs, and (in enlightened language classes) non-traditional instructional approaches” (Oxford,

1990: 136). Having encountered so much novelty, many learners lose their focus, which can be regained through the conscious use of metacognitive strategies.

Affective Strategies: Oxford and Crookall (1989: 404) define affective strategies as “techniques like self-reinforcement and positive self-talk which help learners gain better control over their emotions, attitudes, and motivations related to the language learning. Knowing how to control one’s emotions and attitudes about learning may influence the language learning process positively since it will make the learning more effective and enjoyable. It is also known that negative feelings can hinder progress. The control over such factors is gained through the manipulation of affective strategies.

Social Strategies: Since language is a form of social behavior, it involves communication between and among people. They enable language learners to learn with others by making use of strategies such as asking questions, cooperating with others, and empathizing with others. Yet, their appropriate use is extremely important since they determine the nature of communication in a learning context. Based on the classification system described above, Oxford (1990) developed and inventory called the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) to collect data regarding language-learning strategies

2.3.4 Setiyadi’s Taxonomies

O’Malley (1985) classified learning strategies into three, cognitive, meta-cognitive, and social categories. This classification is implemented in the development of Language Learning Strategies Questionnaire called LLSQ (Setiyadi, 2006) which is used in this study. Cognitive strategies developed in the

current study refer to all mental processes, except processes that involve self-monitoring and self-evaluating, in order to learn another language while the meta-cognitive strategies include self-direction, self-monitoring, self-evaluating, and self-correcting. Next, the other category, the social strategies, includes not only all processes that take place in groups, but also includes individual activities in social settings aimed to acquire another language.

Setiyadi made the original classification of the language learning strategies of the questionnaire was based on theory driving decision making and theories of skill-based learning strategies (Setiyadi, 1999). The result of reliability of the items under each skill-based category indicates that the scale were internally consistent. Since four scales ad significant intercorrellations, they were justified to be grouped into one single measurement, and named Language Learning Strategy Questionnaire or the LLSQ. By the explanation above the researcher chooses the use of LLSQ as the instrument to the research because as had mention before that is more comprehensive and detailed; it is more systematic in linking individual strategies, the further explanation on chapter III.

2.4 Research on Language Learning Strategies

Some researcher already done research about languange strategies. There are: In the 1970s a shift of focus from teaching methods, classroom techniques, and instructional materials to the language learner and his/her characteristics took place as a result of the disappointing research results which revealed that any single method, instruction or material could not guarantee effectiveness on its own in foreign language learning. Scholars in the field noticed that there were learners

who were successful no matter what teaching method or classroom instruction was used. Therefore, the primary concern of most research in the field has been on “identifying what good language learners report they do to learn a second or foreign language or language” (Wenden and Rubin, 1987:19). Rubin (1975) started doing research focusing on strategies of successful learners and stated that, once identified; such strategies could be made available to less successful learners so that they could increase their success rate. Based on her findings, she suggested that “the good language learner” is a willing and accurate guesser; has a strong persevering drive to communicate; is often uninhibited and willing to make mistakes in order to learn or communicate; focuses on form by looking at patterns; takes advantage of all practice opportunities; monitors his or her own speech as well as that of others; and pays attention to meaning. After the findings of Rubin, many studies have been conducted regarding the strategies employed by good language learners. Oxford (1989) states that, she based her classification of the LLS on the synthesis of the results obtained from all these studies. Yet, not all language learners use the same LLS even if they study the same material, in the same classroom, under the same conditions. That is, some other variables influence the choice of strategies.

The findings of Green and Oxford (1995) also indicated higher levels of strategy use by females than by males. Fourteen strategies, some of which are the use flashcards to remember words, reviewing English lessons often, connecting words and locations, skimming and reading carefully, seeking L1 words similar to L2 words, making summaries of information, etc., were used significantly more often

by females in that study, although only one (watching TV programs and video movies in English) was used significantly more often by males.

Oxford and Nyikos (1989) also reported that in their study, besides the conversational input elicitation strategies reflecting social interaction, two more types of strategies – general study strategies and formal rule-related practice strategies- were used significantly more often by females rather than by males. The researchers relate this result to factors such as the females’ desire for good grades, a need for social approval, their verbal superiority to males, and females’ greater willingness to conform to conventional norms. Not all studies that examined learning strategy use between the two sexes found significant differences. Grace (2000) investigated the gender differences in vocabulary retention and access to translations for beginning language learners in Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL).

The analyses of the results revealed that when students were given bilingual multiple-choice tests, there were no significant differences between males and females on their short-term and long-term retention scores. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the amount of time males and females spent looking up translations. It was also reported that the findings of the survey suggested that males and females could equally benefit from a CALL environment. Ehrman and Oxford (1990) also reported that the number and kind of strategies used by females were similar to those used by males.

Anderson (1991) reports results that support Vann and Abraham’s (1990) claims. In the study Anderson conducted, he examined the individual differences in

strategy use by adult second language learners while engaged in two reading tasks: taking a standardized reading comprehension test and reading academic texts. Anderson points out that the most important of the results indicated that there was not any single set of processing strategies that contributed to a large extent to the success of the two reading measures mentioned above. Readers who scored high and those who scored low seemed to be using the same kind of strategies while reading and answering the comprehension questions in the tests. Anderson concludes that “strategic reading is not only a matter of knowing what strategy to use, but also the reader must know how to use a strategy successfully and orchestrate its use with other strategies”.

A fourth variable investigated in relation to LLS is age. Ehrman and Oxford (1989) maintain that in their study age did not seem to be the key point to understanding language learning performance though this view contradicted with the view of many experts in the field that language-learning ability declines with age. Rather the motivational orientation of the adult learners, who were learning the language for immediate career purposes, might have had a greater factor than age. Generally, the studies conducted in the field with respect to learning strategies have focused on either the strategies manipulated by adults or by children. Such studies focus on the strategies employed by the effective and less effective students.

Chamot and El-Dinary (1999) conducted research with respect to children’s learning strategies in immersion classrooms. Their findings are similar in temperament with the results reported by Vann and Abraham’s (1990). That is,

the effective young learners were more flexible with their repertoire of strategies and more effective at monitoring and adapting their strategies than their less effective counterparts. The less effective learners, on the other hand, were more likely to cling to ineffective strategies either because of unawareness of their ineffectiveness or incapability to adapt strategies to the demands of the task. The good young learners in the study reported a variety of strategies they tried for a particular task, indicating that they recognised the need for flexibility in their use of strategies to achieve the language learning tasks. Chamot and El-Dinary (1999) assert that across age levels, effective language learners appear to be capable of examining and adjusting strategies.

Oxford and Nyikos (1989) also conducted a similar survey, in which career orientation was one of the variables investigated. The participants in this study were undergraduate students majoring in technical fields (engineering, computer, or physical sciences), social sciences (education or humanities), and business or other subjects. They found out that university major had a strong effect in the choice of LLS. Students with different career orientations appeared to use different LLS. In the study, the students majoring in social sciences used two of the strategies – functional practice and resourceful independent strategies significantly more often than did students with other majors.

2.5 Concept of Reading

Reading can be said as the window of knowledge in which people are able to know much information and can get information completely from other skills such as listening, speaking, or writing. It might be said that through speaking with

others and listening to the radio or television, someone will not be as perfect as when they are reading.

As Smith (1978:5) says that “to learn to read childern need to read”. He (1978:104) also says that “ reading is extracting information from the text”. Moreover, he 1978:105) also says that “ the fluent readers in all aspects of reading are those who pay attention only to that information in the print that is more relevant to their purposes”. Thus it can be infered that reading is a processes getting information from the text based on the readers needed through reading. For example, the students who read the text about an Indonesian culture, like the way of speech, the way they eat, etc. Their purpose of reading can be to find what an Indonesian cultures likes, how it is different from an west culture and so forth. The students’ success of extracting information from reading might show how good their readding ability, they might only need to pay attention to the relevant information that they want in order to make sense of the idea of the text. In other words, they do not need to spend much time to read the whole text in order to get the idea of the text.

Reading, as Clark and Silbertain (1987) say, “is actually a conversation of sorts between the writer and a reader”. The original or exact message the author means to communicate is really only known by the authors. While the reader reacts and interprets print his own knowledge base, there is no oppurtinity to verify what the author actually says or means.

Finnochiaro (1964: 28) claims that

... in general, reading should not be introduced until childern have a good knowledge of te sound system and the most frequently used

structures. When reading is begun, the initial materials should be drawn from the conversations, stories, or dialogues which childern have learned or memorized.

The question above shows that reading ability should cover the knowledge of language components, such as vocabulary or structure. Therefore, in teachingand learning process, the teachers of English should consider some teaching strategies that can be used to accomplish a desired outcome (Cooper, 1993: 135)

Bamford (1998: 12) says that “reading is the concentratin of meaning form a printed or written materrial”. He (1998: 12) also says that “ the construction of meaning involves the readers’ connecting information from the written message with previous knowledge to arrive at the meaning of an understanding”. It implies that reading ability orr to be able to make sense of the idea from the text, one needs his previous knowledge is what one has already known. The previous knowledge might be gained through reading. The more they read, the more they previous knowlege might be. Therefore, in order to be able to get the idea from the text easily one must often read.

Nuttal in Editha(1989: 14) defines that reading is meaningful interpretation of printed or written verbal symbols. Furtherrmore, Dubin, Fraide, and Eskey (1985: 27) say that reading is the ability to make sense of written or printed symbols to guide recovery information from his or herr human memory and subsequenty use written message. It means that reading is an activity to get more information that we can save in our memory.

The aim of teaching reading is t develop students’ skills that they can red English text (Shaw, 1993: 103). Effective and efficient reading is always purposeful and

much current thinking on reading tends to focus primary on the purpose of activity, even reading is done for pleasure still it is purposeful.

Another deffinition is given by Mackay (1979)who says that reading is an active process. Furthermore, Christian and Mary (1976) mention that reading is the important skills of all for the most students of English through the world. In other words, reading is very important for the students to study other elements of English such as vocabulary, speaking, writing, etc.

2.6 Concept of Reading Comprehension

Smith (1978: 105) says that “reading is asking of printed text, and reading with comprehension becomes a matterr of getting the students’ question answered which is found in the printed or written text”. Moreoverr, Smith (1978: 105) also says that “ predicyion is asking questions and comprhensin is getting these question answered”. As we read, we are constantly asking question and as long as these questions are answered and as long as we are left with no residual uncertainty, we comprehend”. It means that comprehension is getting to understand or to know about something taht readers need the information from many sources to answer their question.

In relation to reading, comprehension can be said as getting information from the text that is needed by the readers. For example, the students who read the text in a reading test, and the purpose is that to find out the impilcit and explicit information asked in the test. If they can find it, it means taht they comprehend the text. Then who reads the menu when they try to find out the information about the menu, the students will comprehend the textt if they get the information of the

menu. In short, one cmprehends the text if he can make sense the idea of the text and get the answeer of their reading purposes.

Finnochiaro, Mary and Banomo (1973: 132) say:

“reading comprehension is the ability which depends on the accuracy and speed of gramophone pereption that is perception of written symbols, control of language relationship and structure, knowledge of vocabulay items and lexical combination, awareness of redudancy the ability to use contextual clues, and recognition cultural allusion”.

In other words, the reader should consider that there are some aspects in reading comprehension that include the knowledge of the reader that is related to the content of the message and the knowledge of the reader which is related to language terms. So, the reader ‘s background knowledge is needed in order to make sense of the idea of the text.

2.7 Data Collection Techniques for Language Learning Strategies

In the body of research on language learning strategies, various researchers have made use of numerous methods for the identification of the patterns of strategy use among language learners ranging from questionnaires to computer tracking. The main reason for utilizing such a wide span of data collection techniques is that not all assessment techniques are appropriate for the identification of every type of strategy. Therefore, researchers must consider this point carefully while designing the data collection methodology of their research studies.

a. Observation

Observation is one way of gathering data regarding learning strategies. However, it should not be forgotten that most of the learning strategies take place mentally and they are difficult to observe. For this reason, while designing an observational

study some important key features need to be considered carefully. Cohen and Scott (1996) point out some factors need to be taken into consideration while planning an observational study such as the number of observers and observed, the frequency and duration of observations, and how the observational data are collected, tabulated and analyzed. In addition to these suggestions, Oxford (1990) stresses the importance of the level of detail a researcher is planning to observe and the focus of the observations. The researcher may aim to observe the learning strategies used by the whole group, by a small group, or one student. She also suggests the foto of observation sessions since this will provide a permanent record of the sessions.

b. Diary Writing

Another way of collecting data concerning learning strategies is diary writing. It is a way of reporting the thoughts, feelings, achievements, and problems the learners report as well as their notions of teachers, friends or native speakers. Diaries are self-reports that are usually subjective. Oxford (1990) asserts that sometimes diary writing may require some training on the part of the learners since they may not know what to report, how to report it, and to what extent to report it. If a researcher is planning to read students’ diaries s/he should inform learners in advance since they are mostly considered private. Some teachers have used diaries as a stimulus to class discussions of strategy use.

c. Interviews

A third way of collecting data regarding learning strategies is interviews. Their types range from unstructured to structured interviews. Since there is no particular

questioning technique in unstructured interviews the data obtained from such an interview is difficult to interpret and categories. Whereas the data gathered from a structured interview are “uniformly organized for all respondents and lend themselves to statistical analysis” (Cohen and Scott, 1996). O’Malley, Chamot and their colleagues (1985), have developed a Student Interview Guide, which asks learners to think about what they generally do when faced with a similar language task. Students are not required to do the task during the interview but they are asked to think about how they typically handle or do the task (O’Malley et al, 1985). Oxford (1990: 197) also adds that “such interviews work well in small groups or with individuals”

d. Questionnaires

Making use of questionnaires in a research study is one of the most commonly used techniques to collect data since they “can be objectively scored and analyzed” (Oxford, 1990: 199). Similar to interviews, they vary from more structured, in which the items can range from “yes or no” answers or indications of frequency, to less structured questions asking respondents to depict or explain the language learning strategy in a detailed way. The data obtained from highly structured questionnaires are uniformly organized because of the standardized categories provided for all respondents and they lend themselves to statistical analysis (Cohen and Scott, 1996). A major benefit of large-scale questionnaires pointed out by Cohen and Scott (1996) is that they have the potential to generate and test hypotheses because of the large number of respondents. Oxford (1990: 199), on the other hand, asserts that the more structured questionnaires “might miss the richness and spontaneity of less structured formats”.

A good example of a structured learning strategy questionnaire is the SILL developed by Oxford and has been used in many parts of the world with the learners of many different languages such as Chinese, French, German, Spanish, Japanese, and Turkish. The SILL has 50 items grouped under 6 sections. Its 5-point scale ranges from “never or almost never” to “always or almost always.” Oxford (1990) points out that the overall average shows how often the learner are inclined to use learning strategies in general, while the means for each section of the SILL stand for which strategy groups the learner is liable to use most frequently.

e. Computer Tracking

Though the computer tracking technology has been applied in only limited way to research strategies, researchers are now trying to find out its potential with regard to assessing language learning strategies. Computer tracking “programs can be used to collect information either with or without the learner’s awareness”(Cohen and Scott, 1996: 103). Such tracking might be used to identify the language learning strategies associated with the use of resource functions such as a dictionary, a thesaurus, tutorials on how to complete given language tasks, etc., belonging to word processing programs, the sequence of processing of elements in reading text for comprehension or in producing written text, and the choice of speed for reading and writing tasks. Cohen and Scott (1996) assert that there might be some problems with the results of other assessment methods such as interviews, diaries, etc. for various reasons. However, by recording a learner’s use of a resource function, the computer eliminates the problem of distortion because

of human inaccuracy or unawareness. The computer tracking method has certain disadvantages as well. A major limitation of the method pointed out by Cohen and Scott (1996) is its inability to describe language learning use strategies or use strategies which do not result in the use of a resource function on the computer. For instance, if a learner uses inferencing to understand the meaning of a word, the computer would not be able to report this. Another limitation is that the use of computer tracking may not be practical since some participants may not feel comfortable working with a computer.

f. Multiple Approaches to Data Collection

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) point out that making use of different types of data collection methods may lead to different results since every assessment method has its own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, some researchers have made use of multiple approaches to data collection. Cohen and Scott (1996: 104) suggest some major issues that should be taken into account while choosing the best data collection method(s). According to them in order to determine the most appropriate data collection method, a researcher should bear in mind issues such as “the purpose of the study, the number of learners and researchers, the resources available, the strategies to be studied, the types of the language tasks for which the strategies are used, and the context in which the language learning takes place”.

III. RESEARCH METHOD

Based on the objective and the theories in the previous, this chapter discusses several points related to the research, i.e., (1) research design, (2) research procedure, (3) population and sample, (4) research instruments, (5) validity of the instruments, (6) reliability of the instruments, (7) data collection procedures, (8) and data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

This was a quantitative non experimental research. Which the purposes were to describe current existing characteristics such as achievement, attitudes, relationship, In this occasion the writer used descriptive types of quantitative non experimental as research design.

With Design:

X Y1 Y2 Where X = Reading Strategies

Y1 = reading achievement Bahasa Indonesia Y2 = reading achievement in English

The study was based on a survey research conducted for the purpose of making descriptive assertations about some population. This study was aimed at finding out the learning strategies, and to investigate the relationship between the

students by using purposive random sampling from SMAN 1 Terbanggi Besar, Central Lampung. The data were collected through questionnaires, one of which

was aimed to identify students’ learning strategies and to find out what strategies

students seemed to prefer.

3.2 Research Procedure

The research was conducted during normal class hour. The writer followed the following procedure in conducting the research

1. Determining the population and select the subject. 2. Conducting the pre-test items reading

3. Giving the questionnaire 4. Conducting reading test items 5. Analyzing the data.

6. Analyzing the correlation and additional information 7. Making conclusion.

3.3 Population and Sample

The data sources in this study were the students studying English at the Third year of Foreign Language of senior high school in Lampung Tengah. SMAN 1

Terbanggi Besar. There were nine classes of third year students’. Not all of the pre-intermediate level students took part in the study. A purposive random sampling technique was used to choose the class as sample. The class was XII IPA1 and XII IPS 4.

3.4.Research Instrument

3.4.1 Questionnaire

Questionnaire was distributed to the students to find what types of strategies that they might employ in learning English. The researcher adapted the questionnaire from Language Learning Strategy Questionnaire (LLSQ) that provided with 20 items in each skill-based category (speaking, listening, reading and writing) Setiyadi (2006). In this research LLSQ was used and transferred from English language to Indonesian language. Some items of the LLSQ have been taken from previous researcher and have been newly developed by Setiyadi (for detail information, see Setiyadi: 1999)

Each category consists of 3 groups of strategies, namely: cognitive strategies, Metacognitive strategies, and social strategies. Cognitive strategies in reading are measured with items nos. 1-11; Metacognitive strategies are measured with items nos. 12-17, and social strategies with items nos.18-20.

COGNITIVE STRATEGIES

1 Untuk memahami kata kata asing ketika membaca saya menebak melalui petunjuk

yang ada

2 Saya belajar bahasa Inggris dengan membaca buku bahasa Inggris atau majalah

3 Saya menghubungkan ejaan bahasa Inggris dangan ejaan indonesa yang mirip

untuk memahami maknanya

4 Saya mencoba untuk memahami kalimat dengan menganalisis pola kalimatnya

5 Saya mencoba untuk menerjemahkan kata demi kata

6 Saya mencoba untuk memahami bacaan dengan menggunakan pengetahuan umum

dan pengalaman saya.

7 Saya menggunakan kata-kata kunci untuk memahami ide-ide keseluruhan.

9 Saya membuat catatan kecil untuk memahami ide bacaan

10 Ketika saya membaca teks saya mengantisipasi alur cerita

11 Saya mengulang - ulang membaca untuk memahami makna daripada kata –kata

yang tersedia

META-COGNITIVE STRATEGIES

12 Saya memperbaiki kesalahan saya dengan membaca kembali beberapa text.

13 Saya memilih topik atau bahan tertentu untuk saya praktekan.

14 Saya memeriksa dan memeriksa kembali pemahaman saya setelah membaca

sebuah bacaan

15 Jika saya tidak bisa memahami sebuah bacaan, saya mencoba untuk menganalisis

apa kesulitan yang benar-benar saya miliki

16 Dalam membaca, saya memilih kata kunci dan mengulang untuk saya sendiri

17 Saya mencoba untuk menyadari mana kata-kata atau aturan tata bahasa yang

memberi saya masalah terbesar. Dengan cara ini saya dapat memberikan perhatian khusus pada masalh ini ketika saya sedang membaca dan berlatih

SOCIAL STRATEGIES

18 Saya mendiskusikan makna bacaan dengan teman – teman saya

19 Jika saya tidak mengerti isi dari pesan yang saya baca, saya menanyakannya

dengan teman saya atau guru untuk member bantuan

20 Saya meningkatkan keterampilan membaca saya dengan membaca surat-surat dari

teman-teman saya

In total, the questionnaire consists of 20 items for the reading skills. Following the format introduced by Oxford (1990 and 1990b), which has been used to measure

Indonesians’ learning strategies by David and Abas (cited in Oxford, 1996), the responses always got the highest score (4) and those of never got the lowest score

(1). In the questionnaire student are given instructions; students are asked to write their response to the statements in the LLSQ.

The students are expected to give their response by choosing one from; (1) never or almost never true of them, (2) usually not true of them, (3) somewhat true of them (4) usually true of them, (5) always or almost always true of me. That tells how true of their statements is. (See the appendix 1)

3.4.2. Reading Comprehension Test

The researcher was used objective test which consists of 20 items of multiple choices of comprehension questions and some reading texts. The question had four alternative answers for each (A, B, C and D), one was correct answer and the rest were distracters.

3.5 Data Analysis

This study was aimed at identifying students’ language learning strategies and

their first language achievement in order to determine whether there is a relationship between them. Another aims of this study was to find out whether students were really making use of the language learning strategies they seem to prefer in the LLSQ. A third aim of the study was to identify whether there were achievement differences in the preferences of first language and language learning strategies. The statistical analyses were conducted by using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS). In this research, the writer measure the correlation between two variables.

Descriptive statistics were used to rank order the strategy categories from the most preferred to the least preferred category. In order to reveal whether there was a significant relationship between the learning achievement in L1 and the language learning strategies the Pearson correlation.

In this research, the writer measure the correlation between two variables. a. Independent variables (x)

Language learning strategies is classified to independet variables because it is assumed that reading strategies of the students has an influence toward their reading comprehension.

b. Dependent Variable (Y)

Reading comprehension is classified as dependent variable because it is assumed that reading comprehension is influenced by reading strategies.

X Y1 Y2 Where X = Reading Strategies

Y1 = reading achievement Bahasa Indonesia Y2 = reading achievement in English

Scores of X variable shows the students’ reading strategies and it has an ordinal

scale. While scores of Y shows the students reading comprehension and it has an interval scale.

3.6 Validity of the Instrument

Validity refers to the extent to which the test measures what is intended to measure. This means that it relates directly to the purpose of the test (Shohamy, 1985:74). There are four types of validity, namely face validity, content validity,

construct validity, and empirical validity or criterion-related validity. Face validity only concerns with the layout of the test while the criterion-related validity is concerned with measuring the success in the future, as in replacement test (Hatch and Farhady (1982:251). There are two instruments in this research. The questionnaire and reading achievement test. The explanation the validity of the instruments of this research as follows:

a. Validity of LLSQ

Content validity refers to the extent to which an empirical measurement reflects specific domain of content (Carmines & Zeller, 1979: 20). As Nunnally (1978: 92) states if a measure is agreed by most potential users, or at least persons in positions of responsibility, it has a high degree of content validity. The content validity of the LLSQ was partly determined by professional judgment. Setiyadi (2011: 41) five language teaching experts matched the LLSQ items, with agreement at 94 %, against entries in three language learning categories.

Construct validity concerns how well a theoretical construct is measured (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995: 8). One of the ways to access construct validity is to determine whether or not a supposed measure of a construct correlates in expected ways with measure of other constructs or is affected in expected ways by particular experimental treatments (Nunnally, 1978: 98). With regard to construct validity, a relevant analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted by Setiyadi. Criterion-related validity involves estimating some important form of behavior that is external t the measuring instrument itself (Nunnally, 1978: 87). The validity of individual predictor instrument and combinations of predictor

instrument is determined by co relational analysis and extensions of correlation analysis to multivariate analysis (Nunnally, 1978: 90). The criterion-related validity of LLSQ was determined by measuring predictive relationship between the use of the LLSQ and language performance. The finding provides evidence that in multiple regression analysis, the three categories are statistically significant predictors of language achievement for Indonesian Learners Setiyadi(2011 :43) based on the information above we can concluded that since the questionnaire had been used in this research, the validity of the test already well done by previous research which conducted by Setiyadi.

b. Achievement Test 1. Content Validity

Content validity is the extent to which the test measures a representative sample of the subject matter content. The focus of the content validity is adequacy of the sample and not simply on the appearance of the test (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 251). To know whether the test is good reflection of what will be taught and of the knowledge which the teacher wants the students know, the researcher compares this test with previous test that already conducted by the teacher.

2. Construct Validity

Construct validity is concerned with whether the test is actually in line with the theory of learning strategies and receptive skill means. To know the test was true reflection of the theory, the researcher will examine whether the test questions actually reflected the mean of those aspect or not.

3.7Reliability of the Instrument a. Reliability of the questionnaire

Reliability can refer to the tendency toward consistency found in repeated measurements of the same phenomenon (Carmines & Zeller, 1979: 12). It can also to stability of measurements over time, an approach which was not suited to the current investigation. In assessing internal consistency, the Cronbach Alpha reliability is the most appropriate reliability index to be used on continuous data, such as that produced by Likert scale. Since the LLSQ is a questionnaire for language learning strategies that has been developed using Likert Scale, a Cronbach alpha was used to measure the internal consistency of the items of the questionnaire. The alpha ranges between 0 and 1. The higher the alpha, the more reliable the questionnaire will be (Setiyadi, 2006: 167). To examine the reliability level or questionnaire reliability the researcher will use Cronbach alpha by using SPSS computer program. , if the reliability count manually the researcher uses the following formula:

∑

Explanation: = reliability

n = the number of item

∑ = total variance of all items = the total of variance

To find the variance, we use the formula as follow:

Explanation: = variance

∑ _{= the number of data quadrate}

∑ = the number of data being quadrate N = the number of data

According to Setiyadi (2006: 16) states reliability is consistency of instrument or how far the instruments can measure the same subject in different time. If an instrument cannot give same result in different time from same subject, it means that instrument has low reliability.

The classification of reliability is as follow: a. between 0.800 to 1.00 = very high reliability b. between 0.600 to 0.800 = high reliability c. between 0. 400 to 0.600 = moderate reliability d. between 0.200 to 0.400 = low reliability e. between 0.00 to 0.200 = very low reliability

b. Reliability of Achievement Test

Reliability refers to the extent to which the test is consistent in its score, and it gives an indication of how accurate the test score are (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 244). To test the reliability of the instruments, the researcher used split-half method in which the test readings were divided into halves. Since the formula is simple. It is because (1) it avoids troublesome correlation and (2) in addition to the number of item in the test, it involves only the test, mean and standard deviation, both of which are normally calculated anyhow as a matter of routine (Heatone, 1991: 164). To measure the coefficient of the reliability between odd

and even group, the research used the Pearson Product Moment formula as follows:

∑

√[∑ ][∑ ]

Where:

Rxy : coefficient of reliability between the first half and the second half items X : total numbers of odd numbers items

Y : total numbers of even numbers items X2 : square of X

Y2 : square of Y

(Heatone, 1991: 164) To know the coefficient correlation of whole items, the researcher will use

Spearman Brown’s Prophecy Formula (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 247). The

formula is as follows:

Where:

rk : the reliability of the test

rl : coefficient of reliability between the first half and the second half items (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 247) The criterion of reliability is:

0.90 – 1.00 : high 0.50 – 0.89 : moderate 0.0 – 0.49 : low

3.8 Data Collection Procedures

Questionnaires were completed during class time. First, the students were asked to fill in the Bahasa version of the LLSQ. To increase the credibility of the responses the language instructors were informed to remind students that they should be sincere in their answers and they should not spend too much time on any of the items. The students were also asked to give an immediate response and that they

should not hesitate and change their answers. The questionnaires were collected and the responses were entered into the computer for data analyses.

They were also informed that there were no right and wrong of what they said and that the important thing was effectively reporting what was going on in their minds.

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1. Conclusion

Based on the data analysis, the writer conclude the research as follow:

a. Students of SMA N 1 Terbanggi Besar of the third year used combination strategies in learning language. Based on the cut off points stated in the scoring sheet of the questionnaire, with a mean score of 3.55 and 36271 was the one related to metacognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies ranked the second with an average of 3.36 and 3.38. Finally, the least preferred strategies were the social strategies ones as their score was 3.07 and 3.19 in learning reading Indonesia and English Language in reading subject.

b. There were many correlation but not to significant between language learning strategies and reading achievement.

5.2. Suggestion.

a. On the contrary, teachers should make use of such findings to adopt the most appropriate teaching strategies. Of course, adopting teaching techniques that will cater the needs of all the students might be difficult but if teachers become sensitive to their students learning style and balance their instruction by making use of a wide variety of tasks in the classroom, they will have treated the students equally.

b. The further research on the relationship between achievement and strategies might focus on the factors such as motivation, career orientation, performance, and the length of exposure to the language which might influence the perceptual learning strategy use of the language learners. What is more, strategy-training sessions might be designed to assess whether designing such training sessions has an impact on the achievement of the students.

REFERENCES

Arikunto, S. 2005. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Dikdatik Edisi Revisi.Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Borkowski, J., Carr, M., & Pressely, M.1987. "Spontaneous" strategy use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory. Intelligence, 11, 61-75.

Brown, A. L. 1987. Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, H.D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Budiharso, T. 2004. Prinsip dan Strategi Pengajaran Bahasa. Surabaya: Lutfansah Mediatama.

Carr, M., Kurtz, B. E., Schneider, W., Turner, L. A., & Borkowski, J. G. 1989. Strategy acquisition and transfer among German and American children: Environmental influences on metacognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 25, 765-771.

Chamot, A.U. and Kupper, L. 1989. Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24. http://www.actfl.org Cohen, A.D. 1999. Strategies in Learning and Using A Second Language. London:

Longman.

Cohen, A.D. 2003. Maximizing Study Abroad: An Instructors’ Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use. Minnesota: University of

Minnesota.

Flavell, J. H. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Flavell, J. H. 1987. Speculations about the nature and development of

metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillside, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Garner, R. 1990. When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517-529.

Halpern, D. F. 1996. Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. 1982. Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Los Angeles: Newbury House Publisher.

Heaton, J.B. 1975. Writing English Language test. London: Longman.

Herawati, Rismar Aprilia, 2011. The Influence of Students’ Motivation And Attitude Toward Their Reading Comprehension Achievement at the Second Year Students of SMA N 1 Lampung Selatan. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University. Unpublished script.

Hughes. Arthur. 1989. Testing for Language Teacher. Great Britanian: Cambridge University Press.

Livingston, J. A. 1996. Effects of metacognitive instruction on strategy use of college students. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Oxford, Rebecca, L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies// What Every Teacher Should Know. Heinle & Heinle Publisher. Boston.

Oxford, Rebecca, L. 1990. Use of Language Learning Strategies A Synthesis of Studies with Implication for Strategy Training. Pergamon Press Plc. Great Britain.

Prasetyo, Anton Dwi. 2005. An Analysis of Learning Strategies Based on

Oxford’s Strategy Systems in the Year 2004/2005. (Unpublished Script) Bandar Lampung.

Priyana, J., Irjayanti Army, Renitasari, V. 2008. Scaffolding English for Junior

High School Students Grade VIII. Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Roberts, M. J., & Erdos, G. 1993. Strategy selection and metacognition. Educational Psychology, 13,259-266.

Rubin, Joan. 1975. What the “Good Language Learners” Can Teach Us. Tesol Quaterly Vol 9. No.1.

Scheid, K. 1993. Helping students become strategic learners: Guidelines for teaching. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Setiawan, O. Djuharie. 2010. 1700 Bank Soal Bimbingan Pemantapan Bahas Inggris untuk SMA/MA. Bandung: Yrama Widya.

that the important thing was effectively reporting what was going on in their minds.

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1. Conclusion

Based on the data analysis, the writer conclude the research as follow:

a. Students of SMA N 1 Terbanggi Besar of the third year used combination strategies in learning language. Based on the cut off points stated in the scoring sheet of the questionnaire, with a mean score of 3.55 and 36271 was the one related to metacognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies ranked the second with an average of 3.36 and 3.38. Finally, the least preferred strategies were the social strategies ones as their score was 3.07 and 3.19 in learning reading Indonesia and English Language in reading subject.

b. There were many correlation but not to significant between language learning strategies and reading achievement.

5.2. Suggestion.

a. On the contrary, teachers should make use of such findings to adopt the most appropriate teaching strategies. Of course, adopting teaching techniques that will cater the needs of all the students might be difficult but if teachers become sensitive to their students learning style and balance their instruction by making use of a wide variety of tasks in the classroom, they will have treated the students equally.

influence the perceptual learning strategy use of the language learners. What is more, strategy-training sessions might be designed to assess whether designing such training sessions has an impact on the achievement of the students.

REFERENCES

Arikunto, S. 2005. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Dikdatik Edisi Revisi.Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Borkowski, J., Carr, M., & Pressely, M.1987. "Spontaneous" strategy use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory. Intelligence, 11, 61-75.

Brown, A. L. 1987. Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, H.D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Budiharso, T. 2004. Prinsip dan Strategi Pengajaran Bahasa. Surabaya: Lutfansah Mediatama.

Carr, M., Kurtz, B. E., Schneider, W., Turner, L. A., & Borkowski, J. G. 1989. Strategy acquisition and transfer among German and American children: Environmental influences on metacognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 25, 765-771.

Chamot, A.U. and Kupper, L. 1989. Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24. http://www.actfl.org Cohen, A.D. 1999. Strategies in Learning and Using A Second Language. London:

Longman.

Cohen, A.D. 2003. Maximizing Study Abroad: An Instructors’ Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use. Minnesota: University of

Minnesota.

Flavell, J. H. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Flavell, J. H. 1987. Speculations about the nature and development of

metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillside, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. 1982. Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Los Angeles: Newbury House Publisher.

Heaton, J.B. 1975. Writing English Language test. London: Longman.

Herawati, Rismar Aprilia, 2011. The Influence of Students’ Motivation And Attitude Toward Their Reading Comprehension Achievement at the Second Year Students of SMA N 1 Lampung Selatan. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University. Unpublished script.

Hughes. Arthur. 1989. Testing for Language Teacher. Great Britanian: Cambridge University Press.

Livingston, J. A. 1996. Effects of metacognitive instruction on strategy use of college students. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Oxford, Rebecca, L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies// What Every Teacher Should Know. Heinle & Heinle Publisher. Boston.

Oxford, Rebecca, L. 1990. Use of Language Learning Strategies A Synthesis of Studies with Implication for Strategy Training. Pergamon Press Plc. Great Britain.

Prasetyo, Anton Dwi. 2005. An Analysis of Learning Strategies Based on Oxford’s Strategy Systems in the Year 2004/2005. (Unpublished Script) Bandar Lampung.

Priyana, J., Irjayanti Army, Renitasari, V. 2008. Scaffolding English for Junior

High School Students Grade VIII. Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Roberts, M. J., & Erdos, G. 1993. Strategy selection and metacognition. Educational Psychology, 13,259-266.

Rubin, Joan. 1975. What the “Good Language Learners” Can Teach Us. Tesol Quaterly Vol 9. No.1.

Scheid, K. 1993. Helping students become strategic learners: Guidelines for teaching. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Setiawan, O. Djuharie. 2010. 1700 Bank Soal Bimbingan Pemantapan Bahas Inggris untuk SMA/MA. Bandung: Yrama Widya.

Setiyadi, Ag. Bambang. 2006. Metode Penelitian Untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing. Penerbit Graha Ilmu. Yogyakarta.

Setiyadi, Ag. Bambang. 2011. English Learning Strategies In An EFL Setting In Indonesia. Penerbit Halaman Moeka. Jakarta.

Shohamy, E. 1985. A Practical Handbook in Language Testing for the Second Language Teacher. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Sternberg, R. J. 1984. What should intelligence tests test? Implications for a triarchic theory of intelligence for intelligence testing. Educational Researcher, 13 (1), 5-15.

Sternberg, R. J. 1986. Inside intelligence. American Scientist, 74, 137-143.

Sternberg, R. J. 1986. Intelligence applied. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,Publishers.

Universitas Lampung. 2011. Format Penulisan Karya Ilmiah Universitas Lampung. Bandar Lampung. Unila.

Van Zile-Tamsen, C. M. 1994. The role of motivation in metacognitive self-regulation. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Van Zile-Tamsen, C. M. 1996. Metacognitive self-regualtion and the daily academic activities of college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Wenden, A. and J. Rubin. 1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New York: Prentice Hall.

Wenden, Anita. 1990. Learning Strategies Refers to Learning behavior. Pretince Hall. Boston.

Yufrizal, Hery. 2008. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition. Bandung: Pustaka Reka Cipta.