66
academic performance as the final learning achievement results. The mapping of the theoretical framework based on the previous description is shown in Figure 2.2.
Note :
Figure 2.2 Theoretical Framework Mapping of the Research
Language as Means of Communication English as Global Language
Behavioral Change
English Learning
Learning Style Reading
Writing Listening
Speaking VHS
Speaking Ability
Speaking Activities Academic
Performance
CE 1. Involvement
2. communication
RO 1. Open listening
2. Collecting data
AC 1. Structuring ideas
2. Testing theories AE
1. Setting targets 2. Applying decision
Diverging
Assimilating Accommodating
Converging
Learning Experience Kolb’s Learning Style
Perceiving Information
Processing Information CE
AC RO
AE
= formulation of Kolb’s learning style
= relate each other = group of
Kolb’s learning cycle = derivationcycle
67
From the previous theoretical framework, 4 hypothesis were organized to figure out the significance of correlation
between students’ learning style, their English speaking ability, and academic performance since logically, the research variables relate
each other but not yet for the significance formulation. The significance of correlation was gained by statistical analysis supported by the analysis of the interview transcript.
Therefore, the hypothesis were statistically formulated as below : Hypothesis 1 :
H
O
: There is no positive correlation between student
s’ learning style and academic performance r
x1y
≤ 0 H
1
: There is positive correlation between student
s’ learning style and academic performance r
x1y
Hypothesis 2 : H
O
: There is no positive correlation between student
s’ English speaking ability and academic performance r
x2y
≤ 0 H
1
: There is positive correlation between student
s’ English speaking ability and Academic performancer
x2y
Hypothesis 3 : H
O
: There is no positive correlation between student
s’ learning style and English speaking ability r
x1x2
≤ 0 H
1
: There is positive correlation between student
s’ learning style and English speaking ability r
x1x2
Hypothesis 4 : H
O
: There is no positive correlation between
students’ learning style, English speaking ability, and academic performance r
x1x2y
≤ 0 H
1
: There is positive correlation between
students’ learning style, English speaking ability and Academic performancer
x1x2y
68
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the discussion of research methodology and also its procedures. The research methodology and its procedures were divided into five
sections : A Research Method, B Data Nature, C Population and Sample, D Data Collection Method, and E Data Analysis and Interpretation.
A. Research Method
This research was mixed-method approach since the research employed quantitative and qualitative data. To cover the research goal, I used the sequential
explanatory strategy. The strategy started with quantitative data collection and analysis. Quantitative data were taken from the questionnaires of
students’ learning style. The questionnaire of learning styles was given to the samples of the
research from grade ten students of Vocational High School. The quantitave data for English speaking ability were
from the teacher’s scoring sheets from 3 speaking activities of singing contest, interviews, and group discussion. The
quantitative data for academic performance were from st udents’ score of English
speaking test in the end of second semester in 20132014 academic year. To support the interpretation of quantitative data analysis, qualitative data
collection and analysis were employed. As it is stated by Creswell 2003 that the qualitative results are used to assist explaining and interpreting the findings of a
primarily quantitative study. Qualitative data were taken from the interviews with 3 respondents representing low, high, and medium English speaking ability
competence. The final data interpretation was the interpretation of entire
69
quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The research method was described as in Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1 Research Method
The capitalization of Quantitative Data writing was to show that these data were the major data. The qualitative data were to support the analysis of
quantitative data. This research employed two variables. The variables were students’ learning style as the first independent variable x
1
, English speaking ability as the second independent variable x
2
and academic performance as dependent variable y. The goal of this research was to find out the correlation
among variables. Therefore this research was a correlational study. Accordingly, the problems formulation was associative as well. Supporting theories related to
learning styles, English speaking ability, and academic performance were revealed in order to back up the formulation of hypothesis. The quantitative data analysis
and interpretation was used to test the hypothesis.
B. Data Nature
The data for this research consisted of two types. The first one was numerical data as the first phase of data collection and analysis. The numerical
data were the result of questionnaires of students’ learning style x
1
, analytical English speaking ability scores x
2
, and academic performance score y. The
Collection Collection
Analysis Analysis
QUANTITATIVE DATA Qualitative Data
Interpretation of Entire Data
70
second type of data that were narrative data as the result of in-depth interviews with 3 participants related to
students’ learning style x
1
, their English speaking ability x
2
, and academic performance y. The questionnaire of students’
learning style consisted of 9 groups of statement. Each group consisted of four statements. Each statement reflected the characteristic of Active Experimentation
AE, Reflective Observation RO, Abstract Conceptualization AC, and Concrete Experience CE. Based on the
Kolb’s Learning Styles division 1985, Converger is the combination of AC and AE. Diverger is the combination CE and
RO. Assimilator is the combination of AC and CO. Accomodator is the combination of CE and AE. The questionnaire was given to 30 students as
samples of research. The blueprint of questionnaire on learning styles is organized in Table 3.1 below adapted from Kolb 1984 and McCarthy 1987.
Table 3.1 Blueprint
of Students’ Learning Style Questionnaire
No Operational
definition Indicators
Statement Number
1 Concrete Experiences
Active participation in learning activities
Opened for new learning experiences
Interest in analyzing and detailing
Interest in new interaction Feeling emphasis
Diligent and enthusiastic A1, B3, C2, D1,
H4, I2
2 Abstract
conceptualization Interest in causality
Believing in personal ideas Interest in various ideas
and theories Interest in evaluating
Interest in thinking of everything
Interest in analyzing and detailing
B2, C4, D3, F4, H2, I3
3 Active
Experimentation Interest in trying
everything Opened for new
B1, C3, F2, G4, H1, I4
71
experiences Active
Interest in seeing self- working result
Obligation to try everything personally
Responsible in many things
4 Reflective
Observation Quiet and silent
Believing in the observation
Interest in observation Interest in watching
Interest in scrutinizing detail causality
Interest in preparation before doing activities
A2, B4, C1, F3, H3, I1
I used Likert scales to show the level of correlation between the questioner statements with participants’ agreement. I used four points of Likert scale to
extract the specific response of the samples and to avoid neutral option. Table 3.2 shows the Likert Scale of Questionnaire Answer Likert 1932.
Table 3.2 Likert Scales on Questionnaire Answers
Scales Degree of Statement in reflecting participant’s learning styles
1 Not appropriate to participant’s
2 Less appropriate to particpant’s
3 Almost appropri
ate to participant’s 4
The most appropriate to participant’s The scores of English speaking ability derived from 3 English speaking activities.
Each speaking activity contained different indicators adjusting the degree of difficulty of the activity and also the emphasis of learning outcome from the activity. The
speaking indicators were taken from Harmer 1991 who defined pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension.
The first one was group singing contest of an English song which represented transactional speaking activity since the students conducted the activity to fulfill the
72
teacher’s instruction and there was no direct discussion. The song title was “Mother, How Are You Today?”. The activity covered the basic competence 1.1 on the English
syllabus for novice level. The song was already practiced several times. Speaking ability indicators were fluency and pronunciation since the vocabularies were identical
to students’ daily activities. The second assessment was group discussion related to students’ understanding of greeting, introduction, and parting expressions. The
speaking ability indicator was vocabularies since students’ creativity in maintaining
interactive conversation dealt with the proper words they used. The third assessment was face-to-face interview with the English teacher. The speaking ability indicators
were comprehension and grammatical accuracy since students were prosecuted to speak grammatically and based on learning materials. The activities were chosen based
on students’ interest. The scoring system was analytical and direct since I scored based
on different aspects and the teacher took the scores by himself. The second and third assignment covered the basic competence 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 on the English
syllabus for novice level and they were reflected the interaction activities. The blueprint of speaking abilities is shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Blueprint of Speaking Ability Indicators and Scoring System
Speaking Activities Indicators of Speaking Abilities Scoring Percentage
Singing Contest Fluency
Pronunciation 30 0-30
20 0-20 Group Discussion
Vocabularies 15 0-15
Interview Comprehension
Grammatical Accuracy 25 0-25
10 0-10 I determined the percentage based on the level of difficulty for each
assignment. In the singing contest and interview, the percentage was higher than in the group discussion. Singing English songs was the favorite activity for the students.
For the interview, I was able to direct the students answering the questions when they were stuck to formulate the answer. Nevertheless, for the group discussion, the
