STUDENTS’ STRATEGIES IN DEVELOPING SPEAKING SKILL: A Study at a University in Bandung.

Chapter I

Introduction

1.1 Background

English is an International language that is used worldwide. The current status of English as an international or global language is underpinned by its wide use in a range of fields such as education, politics, diplomacy, international trade and industry, commerce, science and technology, the media, information technology, popular culture, and communication (Crystal, 2003a: , Huda, 2000: 68, Jenkins, 2003). In educational field, English is used as a medium of instruction in some schools and universities in some parts of the world, with subjects such as management, information, technology and the humanities.

The above factors, and the large number of speakers who use English worldwide, can be considered to be valid reasons for English language special status in Indonesia. In line with this, observers on the use of English in Indonesia (among others Dardjowidjojo, 2003: 32, Huda, 2000: 65-66, Renandya, 2000: 116, Simatupang, 1999: 64) have seen it as potentially serving a number of important purposes, for instance as a means of international communication in practically all fields of works.

From the above explanations, it can be assumed that English ability has become one of significant factors in winning the very tight competition of getting a job in this globalization era and it is believed that people who are fluent in English would tend to earn better jobs in the corporate world because they would have a skill to communicate better with people from other countries (Jenkins, 2010; Seidlhofer, 2004).

University graduates are then expected to master English, especially to become fluent in English speaking skill as, among others, a means of international communication. The importance of being fluent in speaking English is relevant to Nunan’s study (2000: 39) which revealed that mastering the art of speaking is the single most important aspect of learning a second and a foreign language, and success is measured in terms of the ability to carry out a conversation in the language.

Unfortunately in many areas in Indonesia, based on the information from the Educational Board (as cited in Kompas, 2009), the university students’ ability in English especially speaking skill is still considered to be low. Many EFL students find it difficult to develop their speaking ability (Petersen, 2010). Even so, there are a few students who seem to find it easy to develop their speaking skill. Their ability in developing speaking skill is probably the result of employing appropriate language learning strategies. The employment of language learning strategies seems necessary for the language learners because speaking the new language often causes the greatest anxiety among other language skills (Oxford, 1996: 164).

The above notion, which suggests that employing appropriate language learning strategies would help students to develop their speaking skill, is consistent with some studies conducted by a number of researchers (among others O’Malley, Chamot, Russo and Kupper, 1989, as cited in Chamot, 1993). These researchers have studied the outcomes of language learning strategies that were taught to English as second or foreign language (ESL/EFL) learners in numerous different tasks, including vocabulary, listening, and speaking tasks. And, the outcomes of the studies revealed that language learning strategies were primarily benefit for the speaking task (Chamot, 1993: 12;

Bialystock, 1978: 42). Furthermore, Rubin (1975 as cited in O’Malley and Chamot, 1993: 3) and Oxford (1990: 16) mention that there are direct strategies (such as memory strategies) and indirect strategies (such as social strategies) that affect language learning to develop their English skills (the discussion about these strategies will be elaborated in Chapter II of this study).

However research concerning language learning strategies to develop speaking skill still receives a little attention in Indonesian EFL context. Therefore, this study aims to investigate language learning strategies to develop speaking skill used by university students; the students are categorized as high, middle, and low achievers. The study will also focus on figuring out the reasons why they employed those strategies. The focus on these topics is considered important to reveal the relationship between language learning strategies and English proficiency.

1.2 Research Questions

In line with the focus of the study, this study attempts to address the following research questions:

(1) What learning strategies are employed by high achiever, middle achiever, and low achiever students in mastering speaking skills?

1.3 The Purpose of the Study

The purposes of this study are:

(1) To investigate the language learning strategies employed by high achievers, middle achievers, and low achiever students in mastering speaking skills.

(2) To reveal the reasons why they employed those strategies.

1.4 The Clarification of Terms

In this study, there are several terms that needed to be clearly defined in order to avoid misunderstanding and ambiguity. The definitions of the terms in this study are as follows:

(a) Language learning strategies are specific actions or techniques that learners use to assist their progress in developing second or foreign language skills (Oxford, 1990). (b) Speaking strategy is the tools for active, self directed involvement needed for

developing L2 communicative ability (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990).

(c) The speaking strategies in this research are not automatically attached to every high achiever, middle achiever, and low achiever student in mastering speaking skills in general but the strategies that were being used by these students by the time they were at their levels when this study was being conducted.

(d) The students participating in this study belong to generally the same level of English proficiency in reading, structure, and listening. They gained their paper-based TOEFL scores around 400-450. However concerning speaking skill, their proficiency levels were different. High achiever students were the students who got their speaking mid-term and final-mid-term tests scores 5 (excellent) - 6 (outstanding), middle achiever

students were those who got their speaking mid-term and final-term tests scores 3 (good) – 4 (very good), and low achiever students were those who got their speaking mid-term and final-term tests scores 1 (below average) – 2 (average).

1.5 The Scope of the Study

This study was conducted to investigate language learning strategies employed by high, middle, and low achiever students in mastering speaking skill as well as the reasons why they employed those strategies.

A number of researchers (Rubin, 1975; Oxford, 1990; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Silberstein, 1994; Mikulecky and Jeffries, 1996; Grabe and Stoller, 2002; Nunan, 2003) have put forward some language learning strategies. However, this study focuses on language learning strategies developed by Oxford (1990) since it includes everything that second/foreign language learners need to be intelligent learners (Wu, 2008). Meanwhile, the elaboration of Oxford’s and others researchers’ learning strategies will be elaborated in Chapter II of this study.

As mentioned earlier, the study focuses on language learning strategies to enhance speaking skill developed by Oxford (1990). The strategies can be categorized as Direct Strategies and Indirect Strategies (Rubin, 1975; Oxford, 1990). Oxford (1990) elaborates that direct strategies include: (1) memory strategies (creating mental linkages, applying images and sound, reviewing well, and employing action); (2) cognitive strategies (practicing, receiving and sending messages, analyzing and reasoning); and (3) compensation strategies (overcoming limitations in speaking); while, indirect strategies include: (1) meta-cognitive strategies (centering learning, arranging and planning

learning, evaluating learning); (2) affective strategies (lowering anxiety, encouraging oneself, and taking emotional temperature); and (3) social strategies (asking questions, cooperating with others, and empathizing with others).

1.6 The Significance of the Study

With regard to the significance of the study, this research has the potential to give implication to the theory, educational practice, and professional practice.

Theoretically, this study is expected to enrich the literature on language learning strategies to develop speaking skill which still receives a little attention in Indonesian EFL context.

Based on the fact that many EFL students find it difficult to develop their speaking ability (Petersen, 2010), practically this study would provide these students with the information related to appropriate language learning strategies in developing speaking skill. By using the information provided in this study, it is hoped that the students will gain their self direction. Relevant to this, some researchers (among others Oxford, 1990: 10; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990: 182) believe that self directed students would gradually gain confidence, involvement, and proficiency in speaking ability.

Professionally, the result of this study would provide some information to the EFL teachers, so that it is hoped that EFL teachers could support their students’ success in developing the students’ speaking skill. This is relevant with Oxford’s theory (1990: 10) which indicates that by understanding their students’ learning strategies, the teachers would enable the students to become better learners by encouraging their students to take greater self-direction in learning a language.

1.7 Conclusion

This chapter has presented the introduction of the study which was followed by the research questions and the purpose of the study. This chapter has also put forward some clarification of terms, the scope of the study, and the significance of the study. The next chapter is about the theoretical foundation that relates to language learning strategies (LLS) in developing speaking skill.

Chapter III

Research Methodology

This chapter begins with the discussion concerning the research method, next it is followed by the choice of the research method, the research site and the participants. Furthermore, it presents the techniques of collecting the data as well as the validity of the data. The chapter will finally end with the elaboration of the technique of the data analysis.

3.1 Research Method

This study was descriptive with an ex-post facto design and it was qualitative in nature since this study was conducted inductively by collecting the data from the field and analysis which focused on language learning strategies in developing speaking skill which were employed by high achiever, middle achiever, and low achiever students; next, this study focused on the reasons why they employed those strategies.

As mentioned above, this study was descriptive based on the considerations that the method was characterized by attempting to describe characteristics and events that exist (Kamil, 1985). Furthermore, the design was ex-post facto on the basis that the data were collected after the problems to be viewed happened (Sudjana, 1999: 54). In line with this, Kral (1996: 101) covers that the ex-post facto design strategy may be used when the study is determined to investigate the influence of variables such as home environment, gender, motivation, intelligence, or habits. The characteristics that Kral (1996) mentioned above are what a subject had possessed before the study began. The

researcher in this case had no direct control over these variables and could only try to determine their incidence on an observed consequence.

Based on the characteristics stated above, it can be concluded that the language learning strategies are one of the factors that have been possessed by the language learners before they learn a language, so the application of the design fitted the purpose of this study.

3.2 Research Site

This study was conducted at one of the universities in Bandung. The researcher chose this university as the setting of the study on at least three reasons. First, this university was conducting the three-month English for Job Seekers program for its students. The aim of conducting this program was, among others, to enable the participants to be ready for the interview sessions on their future job interviews. Second, it was easy to get the access and communicate with the students as well as with the other lecturers working in that university. Third, it is one of the well-known universities in Bandung.

3.3 Research Participants

The participants of the research were the 8th semester students who were taking the English for Job Seekers program as one of the three-month extracurricular program supported by the university. There were six participants in this study. The participants consisted of three male and three female students. They were categorized into three kinds of participants namely: low achiever, middle achiever, and high achiever students.

The categorization of the students’ achiever levels was based on the students’ average speaking scores. The average scores were taken from their mid-term test and final test scores. Students who got 5 (excellent) - 6 (outstanding) points were categorized as high achiever students, 3 (good) - 4 (very good) points were categorized as middle achiever students, and 1 (below average) – 2 (average) points were categorized as low achiever students.

The aim of the students’ categorization was to know the various language learning strategies employed by these students in mastering speaking skill. The study involved the 8th semester students due to some reasons. First, they have studied English at least for two semesters in the university. Second, they were taking the three-month English for Job Seekers program. Third, they are going to finish their study at the university and are going to search for jobs as soon as they finish their study.

In selecting the participants, this study made use purposeful sampling to gain the important information from the participants (Alwasilah, 2002: 146). The selection of the participants related to the participants’ categorization. The categorization of these participants will be presented in the discussion below.

3.4 The Participants’ Categorization Procedure

The categorization of the participants was based on the American Foreign Service Institute (FSI) interview procedure and scoring system. The American FSI interview procedure requires two testers to rate the participants on a six-point scale for each of the following: pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The reason of having two testers is to achieve a less subjective scoring (Huge, 1996: 114).

Furthermore, to make the scoring more reliable, American FSI interview procedure requires recordings of the interview session.

The American FSI scoring system was employed in this study. The reason for using FSI scoring system was because it contains written descriptions of speaking proficiency levels. Hughes (1996: 110) states that scoring will be valid and reliable only if: (1) it is clearly recognizable, (2) the appropriate descriptions of criteria levels are written, and (3) there is more than one scorer for each performance.

For the purpose of this study, the American FSI speaking proficiency descriptions were modified and it was utilized during the mid-term test as well as the final test scoring stages. The researcher was assisted both in the mid-term test and final test scoring stages by the other English language lecturer from the university where this study was conducted. Both the researcher and the other English language lecturer made use of the American FSI speaking proficiency descriptions as the basis to score the students’ speaking ability. Moreover, the students’ interview sessions in the mid-term test and final test stages were recorded. The speaking proficiency descriptions used in this study can be seen in appendix (1).

3.5 Data Collection

In qualitative research the trustworthiness and authenticity of the data collection play a very significant role (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, as cited in Musthafa, 2000). In collecting the data, the researcher employed questionnaires, and interviews.

3.5.1 Questionnaires

A questionnaire is not simply a list of questions or forms to be filled out. Oppenheim (1982:2) believes that questionnaire is a scientific instrument of measurement and it is used for collecting particular kinds of data.

As stated in Chapter I, the purposes of this study were to investigate the strategies employed by high achiever, middle achiever, and low achiever students in mastering speaking skills, as well as to reveal the reasons why they employed those strategies.

The above questions would be answered by the items in the questionnaire. The questionnaire used was modified from Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) Version 7.0 developed by Oxford (1990) especially for speakers of other languages learning English. The questionnaire covers six strategies, namely: memory, cognitive, compensation, meta-cognitive, affective, and social strategies.

There were 45 questions administered to the participants. Those questions were used to investigate the students’ learning strategies in developing speaking skill. All of the questions numbers and strategies from the questionnaire can be seen from the table on the next page followed by the key to understand the average of language learning strategies.

The Questions’ Numbers and Strategies from the Questionnaire

No Questions Number The Questions were Used to Investigate

1 1 to 9 Memory Strategies

2 10 to 20 Cognitive Strategies

3 21 to 25 Compensation Strategies

4 26 to 33 Meta-cognitive Strategies

5 34 to 39 Affective Strategies

6 40 to 45 Social Strategies

Table 8 The Questions’ Numbers and Strategies from the Questionnaire

Key to Understand the Average of Language Learning Strategies

High

Always or almost always used 4.5 to 5.0

Usually used 3.5 to 4.4

Medium Sometimes used 2.5 to 3.4

Low

Generally not used 1.5 to 2.4

Never or almost never used 1.0 to 1.4

Table 9 Key to Understand the Average of Language Learning Strategies

Besides SILL, the Background Questionnaire was included to provide additional information on students’ characteristics (Oxford, 1990: 281). The Background Questionnaire and SILL were tried out to the participant non sample respondents in order

to know their readability, their validity and reliability since they were originally written in English and were translated into Bahasa Indonesia for the purpose of the study; so that the respondents would not find any difficulties in answering the items existed in the questionnaires.

From the tried out, some inputs had been encountered; and based on that, some items were revised and needed to be explained more at its administration in order that there would not be any misunderstanding of what the items exactly meant.

Before working on the questionnaires, the respondents were given some explanation orally on how to answer the items and some words that might not be understood such as the phrases flashcard, rhymes. The respondents were also given chances to notice any other words that might hindrance them in understanding the items and they were asked to deliver the questions.

In terms of the reliability and validity, the SILL has been used worldwide for students of second and foreign languages in settings such as university, school and government. The internal consistency reliability of the SILL is .94 based on a 505-person sample (Yang, 1992) and .92 based on a 315-person sample (Watanabe, 1990). Content validity is .99 based on independent raters (Oxford, 1986; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995 as cited in Yang, 2007). These mean that the Oxford’s SILL questionnaires can be considered valid and reliable. The questionnaires can be seen in appendix 2 (Background Questionnaire) and appendix 3 (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning).

3.5.2 Interview

To validate the data from the questionnaire, this study utilized interviews. According to Creswell (2008: 226), by interviewing, the researcher will get useful information that cannot be directly observed from the questionnaire. Interview permits participant to describe in detail some personal information and it has better control over the type of information ‘filtered’ through the views of the interviewer. Fraenkel and Wallen (2007: 10) claim that interview is an important way for researcher to check the accuracy.

Open-ended questions were carried out in this study to investigate the speaking strategies employed by the participants and the reasons why they employed those strategies. Patton (1987: 122) as well as Fraenkel and Wallen (2007: 374) propose that an open-ended interview permits the person being interviewed to respond in his or her own terms, moreover, an open-ended interview has the advantage because it permits follow-up by interviewer. The researcher utilized a tape recorder to record the interview because a tape recorder is part of indispensable equipment of the evaluator using qualitative method (Patton, 1987: 137). The researcher also made use of note-taking during the interview process. When a tape recorder is being used during the interview, notes will provide key phrases, list of major points made by the respondents. Patton (1987: 138) points out that the key terms or word shown quotation marks that capture the interviewee’s own language. The interviewees in this study were six students categorized as high, middle and low achievers. As mentioned earlier, students who got 5 (excellent) - 6 (outstanding) points were categorized as high achievers, 3 (good) - 4 (very good) points were categorized as middle achiever students, and 1 (below average) – 2 (average) categorized

as low achiever students. Instances of the interview questions can be seen on appendix (4).

3.6 Data Analysis

The data from questionnaire were analyzed using Likkert scale from 1 to 5. Using this scale, the students were asked to answer the items on the questionnaire based on five possible options namely: always, frequently/usually, sometimes, rarely and never. Each answer has its own score starting form 5 point to 1 point.

Five point means that the participant always used the strategy, 4 point means that the participant usually/frequently used the strategy, 3 point means that the participant sometimes used the strategy, two means that the participant rarely used the strategy, while one means that the participant never used the strategy mentioned on the questionnaire. The scale of questionnaire items taken from Oxford (1990: 294) is presented as follows:

Frequency Scale point

Always 5

Usually/Frequently 4

Sometimes 3

Rarely 2

Never 1

Table 10 The Scale of Questionnaire Items

The interviews were analyzed using five main approaches (Kvale, 1996: 187) which are: categorization of meaning, condensation, structuring, interpreting of meaning

through narrative, interpretation of meaning and ad hoc method for generating meaning. The analysis was based on the research questions mentioned earlier: (1) the learning strategies which were employed by high achievers, middle achievers, and low achiever students in mastering speaking skills, as well as (2) the reasons why they employed those strategies.

3.7 Conclusion

This chapter has discussed the research design. In collecting the data, the study was used qualitative method. In collecting the data, the study was utilized questionnaires and interview. The data from the questionnaires was analyzed using Likert scale, while the data from the interviews were analyzed using five main approaches (Kvale, 1996: 187) namely: categorization of meaning, condensation, structuring, interpreting of meaning through narrative, interpretation of meaning and ad hoc method for generating meaning. The next discussion will focus on data presentation and analysis.

Chapter V

Conclusions and Suggestions

5.1 Conclusions

This study investigates the language learning strategies employed by high, middle, and low achiever students in developing their speaking skills, as well as their reasons for employing certain language learning strategies. From the results and discussions in the previous chapters, several conclusions can be drawn.

First, regarding the language learning strategies employed by high, middle, and low achiever students in developing their speaking skills, the study figured out that all of the participants were active users of similar language learning strategies with high and low achiever students tended to employ meta-cognitive strategies the most for improving their speaking skill (as reported on Chart 1 (p. 71), and Chart 3 (p. 75)), while the middle achiever students tended to employ affective strategies the most to improve their speaking skill (as seen on Chart 2 (p. 73)).

As stated earlier, all of the participants had shown their full involvement in language learning since they were active users of language learning strategies. Based on this, all of the participants could be categorized as good language learners. This is consistent with Ghani (2003), who mentions that good language learners show full involvement in language learning.

However, as mentioned by Fadderholdt (cited in Hismanoglu, 1997), language learners who are capable of using a wide variety of language learning strategies appropriately can improve their language skills in a better way. Consistent with this

theory, this study revealed interesting findings in which high achiever students were using the widest variety of language learning strategies (as seen from the overall average use of LLS presented on Chart 1 (p.71), Chart 2 (p.73), and Chart 3 (p.75)). This might be one of the explanations why the high achiever students’ English speaking skills were better than those of the middle and low achiever students.

Despite the fact that the high achiever students gained more successfully in developing their speaking skill compared to the middle and the lower achiever students, all of the participants had demonstrated their efforts to be able to speak fluently by, among others, employing several strategies such as memory, social, compensation, as well as cognitive strategies. The employment of these strategies were in line with Harmer’s (2002: 269-271) theory concerning success in speaking fluently. Success in speaking fluently depends, among others, on the rapid processing skills. These skills contain language processing, interacting with others, as well as on the spot information processing (Harmer, 2002). All of the participants’ efforts on language processing were seen from their employment of memory strategies; furthermore, their efforts on interacting with others were determined by their employment of social strategies; while, their efforts toward on the spot information processing can be seen from their employment of cognitive and compensation strategies.

Second, concerning the reasons why they employed those strategies, data indicated that all of the students employed memory strategies to effectively increase their ability in memorizing new words. Regarding the use of cognitive strategies, the low achievers employed them to understand the meaning of the new words, the middle achievers employed them to increase their pronunciation, and the high achievers

employed them to gain confidence when they were speaking in English. About the reason for using compensation strategies, all of the students stated that they employed these strategies to keep the conversation going. Concerning the use of meta-cognitive strategies, all of the students pointed out that they employed these strategies, among others, to avoid producing the same errors. Regarding the employment of affective strategies, the students put forward that they utilized them, among others, to gain self-confidence and to avoid losing their concentrations. Finally, concerning the use of social strategies, the low achievers employed these strategies in order to answer their curiosity on how native speakers interacted, and pronounced the words. The middle achievers, on the other hand, used these strategies to increase their fluency in speaking English. And the high achievers employed these strategies in order to converse properly with their English native speaker friends.

From the reasons that were pointed out by these students, it can be indicated that they employed certain language learning strategies consciously to assist their progress in developing English language skills, particularly speaking skill.

As suggested by some researchers, among others Oxford (1996) and Wenden (1990), the conscious use of language learning strategies makes good language learners. It means that all of the participants in this study could be categorized as good language learners.

However, there was a fact that the high achiever students were more successful in acquiring English speaking skill. This might take place because the high achiever students were able to utilize a more extensive variety of language learning strategies suitably. This was relevant with Fadderholdt’s finding (1997 as cited in Hismanoglu,

1997), that language learners who are capable of using a wide variety of language learning strategies appropriately can improve their language skills in a better way.

5.2 Limitations

There are some limitations of the study; the first one is to do with the number of participants which were only six students participating. It would be much better if the research involved more participants to produce a higher reliability of the study. Even so, the findings concerning the relationship between the language learning strategies used and the students’ English speaking skill achievements in this study were consistent with the findings of previous studies, such as those of Fadderholdt (cited in Hismanoglu, 1997), which revealed that language learners who were capable of using a wide variety of language learning strategies appropriately can improve their language skills in a better way. This led the researcher to feel secure that even though the number of participants was just a few but the data obtained were reliable.

The second limitation is that the study involved the researcher as the lecturer of the participants. There was consequently a possible loss of objectivity in every stage of the research, for example in terms of the data collections. In the interview stage, for instance, where the researcher acted as the interviewer, there was a potential for the students to try to please the interviewer who was also their lecturer. However, there were some steps taken to enhance objectivity in this stage. For example, by reminding the participants that they should answer the interview questions as honest as possible by emphasizing that there was no correct or incorrect answer in revealing their language learning strategies. The other step taken was by conducting the cross checking of the data

of the interviews in which the transcription of some interviews was sent back to the students to be checked and made clear if necessary.

The third limitation is in relation to the time and space limit. Even though the researcher was aware of some factors influencing the choice of LLS, such as motivation, gender, cultural background, attitude and beliefs, type of tasks, age and L2 stage, learning style, as well as tolerance and ambiguity (Oxford, 1990: 9), but this study has not got a chance to discuss those factors yet.

5.3 Suggestions

Based on the findings from the study, which may not be generalized to other settings, it is suggested that the language learning strategies be gradually but intensively introduced and implemented in developing English skills, particularly speaking skill. Training on the use of appropriate LLS is suggested to be put forward in English classes/courses.

The above statement could mean that the learners need to learn how to learn, and teachers need to learn how to facilitate the process. Although learning is part of human condition, conscious skill in self-directed learning and in strategy use must be sharpened through training. The learners cannot be spoon-fed if they desire and expect to reach an acceptable level of communicative competence.

The above suggestion came across the researcher after getting the interview data which revealed that the participants hardly ever had a chance to learn how to use language learning strategies effectively in developing their English skills, particularly speaking skill. One of the examples of how to train the participants is by teaching them to

do the note taking when they read or listen to some announcements/messages. By using the appropriate note taking, their integrated English skill would be developed.

The other suggestion is for the future study concerning the language learning strategies to develop speaking skill. This study does not focus on the factors influencing the choice of LLS. Further study may relate this study to several factors influencing the choice of LLS, such as motivation, gender, cultural background, attitude and beliefs, type of tasks, age and L2 stage, learning style, as well as tolerance and ambiguity.

Chapter V

Conclusions and Suggestions

5.1 Conclusions

This study investigates the language learning strategies employed by high, middle, and low achiever students in developing their speaking skills, as well as their reasons for employing certain language learning strategies. From the results and discussions in the previous chapters, several conclusions can be drawn.

First, regarding the language learning strategies employed by high, middle, and low achiever students in developing their speaking skills, the study figured out that all of the participants were active users of similar language learning strategies with high and low achiever students tended to employ meta-cognitive strategies the most for improving their speaking skill (as reported on Chart 1 (p. 71), and Chart 3 (p. 75)), while the middle achiever students tended to employ affective strategies the most to improve their speaking skill (as seen on Chart 2 (p. 73)).

As stated earlier, all of the participants had shown their full involvement in language learning since they were active users of language learning strategies. Based on this, all of the participants could be categorized as good language learners. This is consistent with Ghani (2003), who mentions that good language learners show full involvement in language learning.

However, as mentioned by Fadderholdt (cited in Hismanoglu, 1997), language learners who are capable of using a wide variety of language learning strategies appropriately can improve their language skills in a better way. Consistent with this

theory, this study revealed interesting findings in which high achiever students were using the widest variety of language learning strategies (as seen from the overall average use of LLS presented on Chart 1 (p.71), Chart 2 (p.73), and Chart 3 (p.75)). This might be one of the explanations why the high achiever students’ English speaking skills were better than those of the middle and low achiever students.

Despite the fact that the high achiever students gained more successfully in developing their speaking skill compared to the middle and the lower achiever students, all of the participants had demonstrated their efforts to be able to speak fluently by, among others, employing several strategies such as memory, social, compensation, as well as cognitive strategies. The employment of these strategies were in line with Harmer’s (2002: 269-271) theory concerning success in speaking fluently. Success in speaking fluently depends, among others, on the rapid processing skills. These skills contain language processing, interacting with others, as well as on the spot information processing (Harmer, 2002). All of the participants’ efforts on language processing were seen from their employment of memory strategies; furthermore, their efforts on interacting with others were determined by their employment of social strategies; while, their efforts toward on the spot information processing can be seen from their employment of cognitive and compensation strategies.

Second, concerning the reasons why they employed those strategies, data indicated that all of the students employed memory strategies to effectively increase their ability in memorizing new words. Regarding the use of cognitive strategies, the low achievers employed them to understand the meaning of the new words, the middle achievers employed them to increase their pronunciation, and the high achievers

employed them to gain confidence when they were speaking in English. About the reason for using compensation strategies, all of the students stated that they employed these strategies to keep the conversation going. Concerning the use of meta-cognitive strategies, all of the students pointed out that they employed these strategies, among others, to avoid producing the same errors. Regarding the employment of affective strategies, the students put forward that they utilized them, among others, to gain self-confidence and to avoid losing their concentrations. Finally, concerning the use of social strategies, the low achievers employed these strategies in order to answer their curiosity on how native speakers interacted, and pronounced the words. The middle achievers, on the other hand, used these strategies to increase their fluency in speaking English. And the high achievers employed these strategies in order to converse properly with their English native speaker friends.

From the reasons that were pointed out by these students, it can be indicated that they employed certain language learning strategies consciously to assist their progress in developing English language skills, particularly speaking skill.

As suggested by some researchers, among others Oxford (1996) and Wenden (1990), the conscious use of language learning strategies makes good language learners. It means that all of the participants in this study could be categorized as good language learners.

However, there was a fact that the high achiever students were more successful in acquiring English speaking skill. This might take place because the high achiever students were able to utilize a more extensive variety of language learning strategies suitably. This was relevant with Fadderholdt’s finding (1997 as cited in Hismanoglu,

1997), that language learners who are capable of using a wide variety of language learning strategies appropriately can improve their language skills in a better way.

5.2 Limitations

There are some limitations of the study; the first one is to do with the number of participants which were only six students participating. It would be much better if the research involved more participants to produce a higher reliability of the study. Even so, the findings concerning the relationship between the language learning strategies used and the students’ English speaking skill achievements in this study were consistent with the findings of previous studies, such as those of Fadderholdt (cited in Hismanoglu, 1997), which revealed that language learners who were capable of using a wide variety of language learning strategies appropriately can improve their language skills in a better way. This led the researcher to feel secure that even though the number of participants was just a few but the data obtained were reliable.

The second limitation is that the study involved the researcher as the lecturer of the participants. There was consequently a possible loss of objectivity in every stage of the research, for example in terms of the data collections. In the interview stage, for instance, where the researcher acted as the interviewer, there was a potential for the students to try to please the interviewer who was also their lecturer. However, there were some steps taken to enhance objectivity in this stage. For example, by reminding the participants that they should answer the interview questions as honest as possible by emphasizing that there was no correct or incorrect answer in revealing their language learning strategies. The other step taken was by conducting the cross checking of the data

of the interviews in which the transcription of some interviews was sent back to the students to be checked and made clear if necessary.

The third limitation is in relation to the time and space limit. Even though the researcher was aware of some factors influencing the choice of LLS, such as motivation, gender, cultural background, attitude and beliefs, type of tasks, age and L2 stage, learning style, as well as tolerance and ambiguity (Oxford, 1990: 9), but this study has not got a chance to discuss those factors yet.

5.3 Suggestions

Based on the findings from the study, which may not be generalized to other settings, it is suggested that the language learning strategies be gradually but intensively introduced and implemented in developing English skills, particularly speaking skill. Training on the use of appropriate LLS is suggested to be put forward in English classes/courses.

The above statement could mean that the learners need to learn how to learn, and teachers need to learn how to facilitate the process. Although learning is part of human condition, conscious skill in self-directed learning and in strategy use must be sharpened through training. The learners cannot be spoon-fed if they desire and expect to reach an acceptable level of communicative competence.

The above suggestion came across the researcher after getting the interview data which revealed that the participants hardly ever had a chance to learn how to use language learning strategies effectively in developing their English skills, particularly speaking skill. One of the examples of how to train the participants is by teaching them to

do the note taking when they read or listen to some announcements/messages. By using the appropriate note taking, their integrated English skill would be developed.

The other suggestion is for the future study concerning the language learning strategies to develop speaking skill. This study does not focus on the factors influencing the choice of LLS. Further study may relate this study to several factors influencing the choice of LLS, such as motivation, gender, cultural background, attitude and beliefs, type of tasks, age and L2 stage, learning style, as well as tolerance and ambiguity.