MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ENGLISH VOCABULARY SIZE OF SMART COURSE STUDENTS IN PARE.

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ENGLISH VOCABULARY SIZE OF SMART COURSE STUDENTS IN PARE

A THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Arts and Humanities

Islamic State University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya

By:

NUR AINI

Reg. Number A83212176

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES

ISLAMIC STATE UNIVERSITY OF SUNAN AMPEL SURABAYA 2016

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ENGLISH VOCABULARY SIZE OF SMART COURSE STUDENTS IN PARE

A THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Arts and Humanities

Islamic State University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya

By: Nur Aini

Reg. Number: A83212176

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES

ISLAMIC STATE UNIVERSITY OF SUNAN AMPEL

SURABAYA

2016

ABSTRACT

Aini. Nur. 2016. Morphological Awareness and Its Relationship to English Vocabulary Size of Smart Course Students in Pare. Thesis. English Department. Faculty of Arts and Humanity. Islamic State University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

Thesis Advisor: Murni Fidiyanti, MA.

This study examines the relationship of students’ morphological awareness and their English vocabulary size of Smart course in Pare. Morphological awareness (M A) is the access to create new meaning to get new vocabulary. M A is considered correlated to vocabulary size of students in school and university. However, research on students in a course is still rare. This study is conducted to

measure the relationship of students’ morphological awareness and their English vocabulary size in a course. The objective of this study is to investigate whether there is significant relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of Smart course students in Pare, Kediri.

The method used in this study is Co-relational design. This study took place at Smart Course in Pare, Kediri. The subjects of this study were 42 students in grammar class and speaking class. The data of this study are morphological awareness tests adapted by Al-Farsi (2008) & McBride-Chang et al (2005) and vocabulary level test (VLT) adapted by I.S.P.Nation (2000). The result of those tests is used to correlate the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size. The data are analyzed by Pearson Product Moment Formula and SPSS version 16.0.

The result of the study showed that there was an average positive correlation of 0,578, which means that morphological awareness was found to be averagely correlated with English vocabulary size. This result was shown in the hypothesis testing that the coefficient correlation is in the average, in the significant at 0,05 –level margin of error. The coefficient correlation is higher than the critical value of rtable (0,578 > 0,304). Therefore, it can be concluded that there is significant relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of Smart course students in Pare. This study implied that morphological awareness can be applied as vocabulary learning strategy to improve students’ vocabulary size.

ABSTRAK

Aini. Nur. 2016. Morphological Awareness and Its Relationship to English Vocabulary Size of Smart Course Students in Pare. Skripsi. Fakultas Adab dan Humaniora. Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

Dosen Pembimbing: Murni Fidiyanti, MA.

Penelitian ini menguji hubungan antara kesadaran morfologi siswa dengan kosakata bahasa inggris mereka di kursusan Smart, Pare. Kesadaran morfologi merupakan akses dalam membuat makna kosa kata baru. Kesadaran morfologi seringkali dihubungkan dengan tingkat kosakata pada murid di tingkat sekolah menengah dan universitas. Namun, penelitian ini masih jarang diakukan pada murid di kursusan. Penelitan ini dilakukan untuk mengukur hubungan antara kesadaran morfologi dengan kosa kata murid. Adapun tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui apakah ada hubungan antara kesadaran morfologi dengan kosa kata murid kursusan Smart di Pare, Kediri.

Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah desain korelasi. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan di kursusan di Smart di Pare, Kediri. Subjek dari penelitian ini adalah murid Smart yang diambil dari kelas grammar dan speaking yang berjumlah 42. Data penelitian ini adalah uji kesadaran morfologi yang diadaptasi dari Al-Farsi (2008) dan McBride-Chang et al (2005) dan uji tingkat kosakata. Hasil dari uji tersebut digunakan untuk mengetahui hubungan antara kesadaran morfologi dan kosa kata. Data tersebut dianalisa dengan rumus Pearson Product Moment dan dibantu dengan perhitungan SPSS versi 16.0.

Hasil penelitian ini menujukkan adanya hubungan positif dalam tingkatan sedang 0,578 yang bermakna bahwa kesadaran morfologi ditemukan berhubungan dengan kosa kata bahasa inggris dalam tingkatan sedang. Dari hasil tersebut dapat diketahui uji hipotesa dalam tingkat sedang dan dalam signifikasi tingkat kesalahan 0,05. Koefisien korelasi ini lebih tinggi dari nilai table (0,578 > 0,304). Sehingga, hal ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa terdapat hubungan antara kesadaran morfologi dan kosa kata bahasa inggris pada murid-murid kursusan Smart di Pare. Pnelitian ini memberikan implementasi bahwa kesadaran morfologi dapat di aplikasikan terhadap proses pembelajaran kosa kata untuk meningkatkan kosa kata mereka.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Inside Cover Page ... i

Inside Title Page ... ii

Declaration Page ... iii

Dedication Page ... iv

Thesis Advisor’s Approval Page ... v

Thesis Examiner’s Approval Page ... vi

Acknowledgment ... vii

Motto ... ix

Table of Content ... x

Abstract ... xv

Abstrak ... xvi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Study ... 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem ... 5

1.3. Objective of the Study ... 6

1.4. Significance of the Study... 6

1.5. Scope and Limitation of the Study ... 7

1.6. Definition of Key Terms ... 8

1.7. Hypothesis ... 8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Theoretical Framework ... 9

2.1.1. Morphology ... 9

2.1.2. Morpheme ... 9

2.1.3. Inflectional Morphology ... 11

2.1.4.1. Affixation ... 13

2.1.5. Morphological Awareness ... 17

2.1.6. Vocabulary ... 18

2.1.7. Vocabulary Size ... 20

2.2. Related Studies ... 20

CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF THE STUDY 3.1. Research Method ... 25

3.2. Research Variables ... 26

3.3. Subjects of Study ... 26

3.4. Research Instrument ... 27

3.4.1. Instrument Validation ... 32

3.4.2. Scoring System ... 34

3.5. Research Procedures ... 34

3.6. Data Analysis ... 36

3.6.1. Hypothesis Testing ... 38

CHAPTER 4: FINDING AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Finding ... 40

4.1.1. The Extent of Students’ Morphological Awareness Tets ... 42

4.1.2. The Extent of Vocabulary Size Test ... 50

4.1.3. The Relationship between M A test and VLT scores ... 59

4.1.4. Hypothesis Testing ... 65

4.2. Discussion ... 66

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1. Conclusion ... 69

5.2. Suggestion ... 70

REFERENCES ... 71

APPENDICES ... 75

Appendix 2: Vocabulary Level Test ... 7 Appendix 3: Answer Sheet of VLT ... 14 Appendix 4: Expert Validation Form of MA Test ... Appendix 5: Expert Validation Form of VLT ... Surat Ijin Penelitian ... Kartu Bimbingan ...

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Prefix with the Meaning “not” ... 14

Table 2.2: Other verb prefixes with specific meanings ... 14

Table 2.3: Verb + Suffix ... 15

Table 2.4: Adjective + Suffixes ... 15

Table 2.5: er/-or and –ist ... 16

Table 2.6: Adjective Suffixes ... 17

Table 3.1: Interpretation of r Product Moment Pearson ... 38

Table 4.1: Total Scores of MA test of students ... 40

Table 4.2: Scores of MA Test of Students in Grammar Class ... 42

Table 4.3: Frequency Distribution Mean Score of MA test ... 44

Table 4.4: Quality of Variable of The Score Students’MA test ... 45

Table 4.5: Scores of MA Test of Students in Speaking Class ... 46

Table 4.6: Frequency Distribution Mean Score of MA test ... 48

Table 4.7: Quality of Variable of The Score Students’ MA test ... 49

Table 4.8: Total Scores of VLT of Students ... 50

Table 4.9: Scores of VLT’s Students in Grammar Class ... 52

Table 4.10: Frequency Distribution Mean Score of VLT of Grammar Class ... 54

Table 4.11: Quality of Variable of The Score Students’ VLT test ... 55

Table 4.12: Scores of VLT Students in Speaking Class ... 56

Table 4.13: Frequency Distribution Mean Score of VLT in Speaking Class ... 58

Table 4.14: Quality of Variable of the Result Students’ VLT test ... 58

Table 4.15: Table of Pearson Product Moment ... 60

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This part introduces the present study. It describes background of the study, research problem, research objective, significance of the study, scope and limitation of the study, definition of the key terms, and hypothesis.

1.1.Background of The Study

Morphology is the study of the structure of words. In linguistics morphology refers to the mental system involved in word formation or to the branch of linguistics that deals with words, their internal structure, and how they are formed (Aronoff & Fudeman, 2005:1-2). As morphology deals with words, the concept of ‘word’ itself in English tends to be smaller unit than sentences. A sentence can be broken down into smaller units (words). Then, the words can be broken down into smaller and meaningful parts. The smallest meaningful part of a word itself is called a morpheme.

A morpheme is minimal unit which has sound and meaning (lexical meaning or grammatical function). A major way in which morphologists investigate words, their internal structure, and how they are formed is through the identification and study of morphemes, often defined as the smallest linguistic pieces with a grammatical function. A morpheme may consist of a word, such as hand, or a meaningful piece of a word, such as the -ed of looked, that cannot be divided into

2

smaller meaningful parts. Based on the definition above, the purpose of morphology is the study of morphemes and their arrangements in forming words.

Studying morphemes and their arrangement in forming words can be learned by students. As stated by Carlisle (1995:194) in his study, children can consciously aware of the morphemic structure of words, reflect on and manipulate the structure of words. This awareness of the morpheme is called morphological awareness. Morphological awareness is the ability to recognize the parts of words and word segments that convey meaning. Wolter and Green (2013:27) define morphological awareness as the awareness of morphemic structure of words and the ability to reflect on the structure. In addition, Chang et al (2005:417) defines morphological awareness as the awareness of and access to the meaning and structure of morphemes in relation to words, for example, the word beauty is root morpheme. English learner can generalize it into new word classes, beauty+ful becomes beautiful (adjective), beauty+fy becomes beautify (verb), and beauty+fully becomes beautifully (adverb). From those examples, learner can get new words, new meaning with different classes. Moreover, morphological awareness can be useful for one of strategy to acquire vocabulary knowledge. As stated by Chang et al (2005:428), children can acquire vocabulary knowledge through morphological awareness. They focused on the two aspects of this morphological awareness, morpheme identification and morphological structure awareness. Morpheme identification is the ability to distinguish different meanings across homophones,

3

whilts, morphological structure awareness is the ability to create new meanings by making use of familiar morphemes. Yet, is there any relationship between this morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in Smart Course?

Vocabulary is total number of words in language. Learning language should know the vocabulary in that language, so vocabulary has important role in learning language. Many researchers have studied about the importance of knowing a sufficient number of words to be able to function in the language. According to Nation as cited in Wahyuni (2015), one of the critical factors in successful guessing the words from a context is the students’ vocabulary size, because this will affect the frequency of unknown words in a text. The term “vocabulary size” or also known as vocabulary breadth refers to quantity or number of words that the students know at particular levels of language proficiency. Thus, the development of vocabulary size needs to be examined in order to know the level of learner’s ability in mastering vocabulary.

In addition in the previous study in understanding the relationship between vocabulary size and morphological awareness, as stated by Nurhemida (2007), “in learning a language, specifically for vocabulary goals, there are three aspects to be looked at: the number of words in the language, the number of words known by the native speakers, and the number of words needed by a learner to use the language productively.” The number of words in English and number known by English native speakers are not the interest of the current study, which instead

4

focuses on the third aspect: the words needed to use English productively, specifically for students in Smart Course, Pare. According to Laufer & Goldstein as cited by Shahov (2012:38), the meaning of productive knowledge is usually associated with speaking and writing. Thus, the writer intends to examine the vocabulary size of Smart course students into grammar class and speaking class.

Previous studies were done by some researchers. Therefore, this study builds on this body of research by examining the relationship between morphological awareness and English vocabulary size of Smart course students as some considerations; Smart course students in Pare are learners who study English. As they learn language, it correlates to vocabulary knowledge. Morphological awareness is used by the writer to examine the relationship between its morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. As the writer examines the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and morphological awareness, students of grammar class and speaking class were taken to be place to measure it because these classes are productive language, both of them need vocabulary knowledge and there are different area of focus of study which are speaking is to increase the ability in speaking skill, and grammar is the ability to build good writing skill.

However, students in Smart course are as English as Foreign Language (EFL) students. As Nurhemida (2007) investigated the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge of EFL students. The results

5

showed that there was a significant relationship between students’ morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. The same object of the study was also done by Rosalina (2012). She analyzed the correlation between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of students in senior high school in Bandar Lampung. The result of her study was there was correlation between students’ morphological awareness and vocabulary size. If the result of two previous studies was positive correlation between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of EFL students, the next study has different result. Al-Farsi (2008) examined Omani EFL University students’ morphological awareness and its relationship to their vocabulary knowledge and morphological complexity. He found that the there was no significant relationship between students’ morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. Thus, students in Smart course as EFL students comes to be the writer’s gap in order to know whether any relationship between their morphological awareness and vocabulary size.

1.2.Statement of the Problems

This study is conducted to answer the problem formulated in the following questions:

1.2.1. What is the extent of morphological awareness of students in Smart course, Pare?

6

1.2.3. Is there any relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of students in Smart course, Pare?

1.3.Objectives of the Study

Based on the problems above, the objectives of the study are:

1.3.1. To find out the extent of morphological awareness of students in Smart course, Pare.

1.3.2. To find out the extent of vocabulary size of students in Smart course, Pare.

1.3.3. To find out whether there is relationship between morphological awareness and their vocabulary size.

1.4.Significance of the Study

This study is expected to be beneficial in these points. Theoretically, it is expected that the result of this study could contribute an insight about the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size by examining students in one of courses in Pare. Thus, it is expected that the study could extend finding from previous study to the context of English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Indonesia.

Besides, the result of the study is expected to be beneficial to open new area of research. That is, if only someone were interested in analyzing the relationship

7

between vocabulary knowledge and morphological awareness in another area of study, the result of the measurement in this study might be useful to be taken into consideration.

Practically, the result of this study is expected to be useful for reader to know the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size. Thus, the reader is able to use morphological learning to acquire vocabulary knowledge.

1.5.Scope and Limitation of the Study

In this study, the writer gave two kinds of tests. One test was for measuring students’ vocabulary levels by using Vocabulary Level Test (VLT), and another was for measuring morphological awareness test by using morphological awareness test. The writer adapted I.S.P. Nation test to measure VLT test. Meanwhile, morphological awareness test consisted of two parts. Part one was morpheme identification test which adapted from Al-Farsi (2008) and part two was morphological structure test which adapted from McBride Chang et al (2005). The scope of this measurement was measuring the level of students’ vocabulary size and morphological awareness and its relationship. The participants were taken at Smart Course students. The writer limitted the participants into two classes; grammar class and speaking class in one course, SMART ILC.

8

1.6.Definition of the Key Terms

Morphology: the study of forms. Linguistics morphology refers to the study of words, their internal structure and the mental process that are involved in word formation (Arnoff anf Fudeman, 2005: 3)

Morphological awareness: the awareness of morphemic structure of words and

the ability to reflect on the structure (Wolter and Green, 2013:27)

Vocabulary: the knowledge of words and word meanings (Butler et al, 2010:1)

Vocabulary size: also known as vocabulary breadth, refers to the quantity or number of words that the students know at particular levels of language proficiency (I.S.P Nation, 2000:573)

Smart ILC: English course located in Pare, Kediri-East Java.

1.7.Hypothesis

The hypothesis in this study might be:

“There is relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of students in Smart course.”

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter discussed theoretical framework and related studies. Theoretical frameworks discussed the description of morphology, morpheme, inflectional morphology, derivational morphology, affixes, morphological awareness, vocabulary, and vocabulary size. Then related studies discussed morphological awareness and vocabulary size.

2.1.

Theoretical Framework

2.1.1.

Morphology

Morphology is the study of form or forms. According to Aronoff and Fudeman (2005:1-2), morphology in linguistics refers to the mental system involved in word formation or to the branch of linguistics that deals with words, their internal structure, and how they are formed. Talking about words, it relates to the the sentence as sentence is formed by combining that words. The sentences itself can be broken into smaller unit and meaningful parts. The smallest meaningful part of a word is called a morpheme. It will be discussed in the following section.

2.1.2.

Morphemes

A morpheme is defined as the smallest linguistic unit which has a meaning or grammatical function. Aronoff and Fudeman (2005:2) defined morphemes as the smallest linguistic pieces with a grammatical function. A

10

morpheme may consist of a word, such as hand, or a meaningful piece of a word, such as the –ed of looked, that cannot be divided into smaller meaningful parts. Another linguist identifies three criteria of what it takes to be a morpheme. They are meaningfulness, recurrence, and regular interchanges (Coates, 1999:04). Meaningfulness means that a morpheme should have a meaning or function (e.g. morpheme pre which has meaning “before” in sentence He gives some preview before present the presentation). Recurrence means that recur in other words with a related meaning (e.g. prefix un in the sentences: He is unbelievable stingy and It was unhappy married). Regular interchanges means that it should be involved in a pattern of interchange (e.g. suffix est in word longest). Those examples (pre in preview, un in unbelievable, and est and longest) are kinds of boundary morpheme that includes of types of morpheme.

Coates (1999:3) then, divided two types of morphemes; bound morphemes and free morphemes. Bound morpheme is a morpheme that cannot stand alone, but need the support of other morphemes; e.g. -s (dogs), -ly (quickly), -ed (walked). Free morphemes are morphemes that can stand by themselves as words; e.g. book (bookshelf), think (thinking), care (careless). The overwhelming majority of morphemes, free or bound, have one or more meanings of their own. Typical morphemes are meaningful.

In addition, Coates (1999:22) stated that morphemes are categorized into lexical morphemes (-ness in politeness, -ful in careful) and grammatical

11

morphemes (-s in books, -ed walked). Lexical morphemes are part of derivational morphology that focused on the processes involved in building lexical form. Grammatical morphemes are part of inflectional morphology that concerns with the process involved in building grammatical word forms. In this study, the writer focused on identifying knowledge of English morphology which is knowledge of both inflectional and derivational process. Knowledge of inflectional morpheme plays a key role in grammatical accuracy while knowledge of derivational plays a role in the development of vocabulary size (Rosalina, 2012:11). Thus, Smart course students are taken as the role of knowledge on both inflectional and derivational process in the development of English vocabulary.

2.1.3.

Inflectional morphology

According to Fromkin et al., (1988:129), inflectional morphemes are morphemes that never change the syntactic category of the words or morphemes to which they are attached (e.g. Bella ate an apple and Bella ate three apples. The suffix -s in apples indicates the plural form of base word). In addition, targeting awareness of inflectional morphemes should focus on associating the grammatical forms with their meanings. This may involve mapping the concept of “more than one” with the plural -s (apples) or the concept of an action occurring in the present with the present progressive-ing

12

(Walter and Green, 2013:31). Inflectional morphemes change form of a word based on its grammatical function, for example in the sentences:

1) We walk to the library together. 2) We walked to the library yesterday.

In the sentences above, walk becomes walked to indicate activity in the past.

2.1.4. Derivational Morphology

Fromkin et al., (1998:120) stated that derivation process changes the category, or grammatical class of words, when a prefix or suffix is joined to others morphemes (or words), a new word is derived or formed. Derivational process focuses on the change of a word to give additional meaning to the original words (e.g. the word possible becomes impossible), for examples: 1) The possible situation is she ran away from the robbers directly. 2) The impossible situation is she ran away from the robbers directly.

The morpheme im adds meaning “not” to word “possible” which means no possibility.

Derivational morphemes also change grammatical classes (e.g. create as verb, becomes creative as an adjective), for examples:

1) They create a younger image in their company.

2) The creative employee will get reward from his company

In the sentence above, the word create as verb is changed into creative as adjective by adding suffix -ive.

13

Derivational morphemes usually occur by the addition of an affix. Wolter and Green (2013:34) stated that derivational morphemes change the semantic roles played by words within sentences. Derivational modifications can transform an adjective to a noun (electric, electrician), a verb to a noun (communicate, communication), or a verb to an adjective (create, creative). These forms allow for syntactic flexibility in speaking and writing.

If knowledge of inflectional morphology plays a key role in grammatical accuracy, knowledge of derivational morphology plays a role in the development of vocabulary size. Its knowledge of derivational morphology involves in affixes.

2.1.4.1. Affixation

Affix is a morpheme that is not a root, but it is always bound which is joined before or after stem word. There are two kinds of affixes in English, prefixes (adding morpheme at the beginning of a word) and suffixes (adding morpheme at the end of a word). To create new words, the speaker commonly uses prefix and suffix. These prefix and suffix are also as the key for the learners to develop their vocabulary.

a) Prefixes

Prefixes come before stem of a word. It is placed at the beginning of word (e.g. prefix –un in unhappy). There are several prefixes which commonly used by the speaker in order to create new meaning (Redman, 1997:18-19):

14

a. Prefixes with the meaning “not”

Table 2.1

Prefix Function Examples

un used with many different word

unconditionally, unable, unemployed

im used before a word beginning with letter ‘m’ and ‘p’

impolite, impatient, immortal

il used before a word beginning with letter ‘l’

illegible, illogical ir only used before a word

beginning with letter ‘r’

irresponsible, irregular dis used before adjective dishonest, disadvantage in used before a limited

number of words

Invisible

b. Other verb prefixes with specific meanings

Table 2.2

Prefix Meaning Example

re Again The shop closed down but will reopen next month.

over Too much I went to bed very late and I overslept this morning.

mis Badly or incorrectly

15

b) Suffixes

Suffix comes after stem of a word. It is placed at the end of a word, (e.g. suffix –able in valuable). There are several suffixes that used by speakers (Redman, 1997:20-22):

a. Noun suffixes

 verb + suffixes:

Table 2.3

Verb Meaning Suffix Noun

Improve Get better ~ment Improvement

Manage For shop/business ~ment Management

elect Choose somebody by voting ~ion Election

discuss Talk about something by

seriously

~ion Discussion

inform Tell someone something ~ation Information

Jog Running to keep fit or for pleasure

~ing Jogging

 adjective + suffixes:

Table 2.4

Adjective Meaning Suffix Noun

Weak ≠ strong ~ness Weakness

16

Dark at night, when you can’t see ~ness Darkness

Stupid ≠intelligent ~ity Stupidity

Punctual Always arrives at the right time ~ity Punctuality

Similar Almost the same, ≠different ~ity Similarity

 er/-or and –ist:

Table 2.5

Suffix Noun Verb Noun Suffixes

~er dance dancer

sing singer

farm farmer

Football Footballer

~or operate Operator

translate Translator direct Director

~ist Art Artist

17

b. Adjective suffixes

Table 2.6

Noun/Verb Suffix Adjectives Meaning

danger ~ous dangerous The possibility of harm music ~al Musical Relates to music economics ~al economical Saves you money

cloud ~y Cloudy With clouds

dirt ~y Dirty ≠clean

create ~ive Creative Able to produce new idea attract ~ive Attractive Pretty, nice to look at

2.1.5. Morphological Awareness

Morphological awareness is the awareness of and access to the meaning and structure of morphemes in relation to words (Chang et al, 2005:417). This definition relates to both knowledge of derivations and inflections. Derivational morphology includes prefixes (e.g. dis in disagree), suffixes (e.g. –ful in careful), and compounding (e.g. child + hood= childhood). Meanwhile, inflectional morphology focuses on grammatical changes in words (e.g. –s in cats, -ed in talked, -ing in cooking). learners’ awareness of morphology plays on both derivational morphology and inflectional morphology. By doing this way, learners can get new meaning which allows them to get new vocabulary.

18

As this morphological awareness is useful for vocabulary building, Chang et al (2005:420) proposed two aspects for learners to asses this morphological awareness; morpheme identification and morphological structure awareness. Those aspects are used as testing to measure morphological awareness of learners. Morpheme identification test measures learners’ ability to guess meaning by using morpheme, whereas morphological structure awareness test measures learners’ ability to create new meaning by making use of inflected and derived words. These tests were used by the writer to asses students’ morphological awareness in Smart course, Pare-Kediri as those tests would give the results of students’ ability to create new meaning which allows them to get new vocabulary.

2.1.6. Vocabulary

Vocabulary is generically defined as the knowledge of words and word meanings (Butler et al, 2010:1). Webster (1988:124) stated that vocabulary is a collection or list of words used in language by class, individual, or in field of knowledge. As cited by Butler et al, The National Reading Panel (NRP) stated that vocabulary plays an important role both in learning to read and in comprehending text: readers cannot understand text without knowing what most of the words mean. Thus, vocabulary is one of language that should be learned by someone who wants to master language.

It would be impossible to learn a language without vocabulary, learning a language means learning its vocabulary Rivers (1970: 462). This shows that

19

vocabulary has important role for people to learn language. In addition, vocabulary brings to the role in communication. Vocabulary is needed in order to communicate with other people. Indeed, people should master a lot of vocabulary in order to understand what someone say and write.

In addition, Burton (1982:98) explained that a large number of vocabularies help you to express the idea precisely, without repetition of words. He also mentioned that the larger our vocabulary is, the better we can perform in all aspects of English language works. As vocabulary is important for learners to study language, many ways are given to master vocabulary and to build vocabulary.

Anglin (1993: 58) as cited in Rosalina (2012), proposed three approaches in the research literature to the development of vocabulary knowledge:

1) Direct instruction of vocabulary in school.

2) Learning words and their meanings from context, especially during reading activities. In addition, Zimmerman (2005) emphasizes that the primary method for acquiring new vocabulary (breadth) and deepen understanding for existing vocabulary (depth) is through extensive reading. Furthermore, Krashen, (1985, 1989, as cited in Morin, 2003) believes that reading is the most efficient way to learn vocabulary naturally.

20

The third approach is the focus of this study. The writer applied morphological awareness of students in Smart course to increase vocabulary knowledge.

2.1.7. Vocabulary Size

Vocabulary size is also known as vocabulary breadth, refers to the quantity or number of words that the students know at particular levels of language proficiency (I.S.P Nation, 2000:573). To measure whether the high frequency words have been learned by students, and where the students are in the learning of low frequency vocabulary is by giving test. The test is called Vocabulary Level Test (VLT).

2.2. Related Studies

The role of morphology in vocabulary building has been abundantly researched. A series of researches have been done by some researchers who correlate morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge (Chang et al, 2005; Maag, 2007; Nurhemida, 2007; Farsi, 2008; Tabatabei & Yakhabi, 2011; Latifi et al, 2012; Rosalina, 2012; Singgih, 2013; Wahyuni, 2015; Jawad & Yasin, 2015). These studies have been reviewed and the results of the previous studies presented as follows.

Chang et al (2005) examined the role of morphological awareness in children’s vocabulary acquisition in English. Two aspects of test are given to kindergartners and second graders to measure their morphological awareness.

21

Those aspects are Morpheme Identification and Morphological Structure Test. The results of the tests showed that the morphological structure task was a significant predictor of vocabulary knowledge in the kindergarten, second-grade, and combined samples. In contrast, the morphological identification task was a significant final predictor of vocabulary for the kindergarten and combined samples only. Thus, tasks of morphological awareness were good predictors of children’s vocabulary knowledge. The tools in taking the result, Chang et al used two kinds of tests; morphological identification awareness test and morphological structural awareness test. The first test, they served kinds of pictures with two meanings beside the pictures. The children then should listen to the sound and chose the right answer of the picture provided. This test is used to measure the phonological of children have. The second test, morphological structure test is showing pictures of some objects which some of them are daily objects that they see, and some are weird objects that they’ve never seen before. The test then mention the names for those weird objects based on the names of daily objects. For example, here is a ballpoint pen that is blue in color. We call that blue ballpoint pen. Now here is a ballpoint pen that is red in color, we call that red ballpoint pen. The difference between Chang et al research and this study was the concept the test. In spite of this study used Chang et al test to measure morphological awareness of students in Pare, she modified the test by omitting pictures in both tests. As this study has different subject of population, so the writer omitted the pictures because the population of this study are not children.

22

In addition, the writer only used the test of morphological structure test as a consideration: Chang et al’s morpheme identification test did not appropriate to this study as it is used by Chang et al to measure the children morphological awareness relating to their phonological ability. Meanwhile, in this study, the writer only needed to measure the morphological awareness of Pare students. Thus, this study was different with Chang et al in subject of population and the test used by between the writer and Chang et al.

In the same tests of measuring morphological awareness of students, Nurhemida (2007) investigated the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in the context of English as Foreign Language (EFL) for senior high school students in Indonesia. She took 2 different area of studies; social science class and natural science. Nation’s Vocabulary Level Test (VLT) which tested knowledge of words drawn from level 2000, 3000, and 5000 was taken to measure their vocabulary size. Then, morpheme identification and morphological structural awareness were taken to measure morphological awareness. The VLT result revealed that students performed better at 2000 level than two higher frequency levels. And morpheme identification result showed that both class major did better in this test, whereas Natural Science did better in morphological structure test than social science. For the final result of the study showed that there was significant relationship between the students’ performance in the vocabulary level test and the morphological awareness tasks. Both this study and her thesis have the same

23

subjects; EFL students in Indonesia. However, this study did not take the same area of subjects. The writer did not take the subjects of research in area of high students but in the area of course which focus on English language. In addition, the research instruments of this study was different from previous study, that the writer did not use morpheme identification test that used by Nurhemida.

In addition, Al Farsi (2008) examined his thesis under the title Morphological Awareness and Its Relationship to Vocabulary Knowledge and Morphological Complexity among Omani EFL University Students. He found that the students’ overall morphological awareness and vocabulary size were limited and the relationship between the two constructs could not be established, owing to the appearance of floor effect in test scores and task difficulty. This study is different from him as the study was taken in students’ course.

Another research is done by Rosalina (2012) in her thesis who examined the correlation between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of students in senior high school in Bandar Lampung. The result showed that morphological awareness contributes 62,3% to their vocabulary size and 37,7%. This means that there is correlation between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of students in SMA Bandar Lampung. Her research instruments used tests adapted from Chang el al and Word Definition Matching as Vocabulary Level Test. This VLT that used by her is different from this study. The writer in this study used Vocabulary Level Test Version 2 adapted by I.S.P Nation. In addition, the subjects of this study were Smart Course students whom study English in focus.

24

Based on those previous studies, the writer examined the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size in different area of study, students in Smart Course, Pare.

25

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter discussed research design, research variables, subjects of the study, research instrument, instrument validation, scoring system, research procedures, data analysis, and hypothesis testing.

3.1.Research Design

In this study, the research design was Co-relational design. Correlation is one of the types in quantitative approach. Correlation is used when the researcher wants to relate one variable to another variable (Hatch & Lazaration, 1999:425). In this study, the writer used Ex Post Facto design as she wanted to investigate whether morphological awareness correlates with vocabulary size of students in Smart course, Pare. Hatch and Lazaration (1999:99) stated “Ex Post Facto design looks at the type of connection between independent and dependent variables or the strength of the connection without considering what went before. No treatment is involved. Good design requires, however, that you consider all the possible threats to the validity of the study and try to control for as many of them as possible.” Ex post facto design is as follows:

X y

Note:

X : The test of morphological awareness Y : The test of vocabulary size

26

3.2.Research Variables

There are two variables analyzed in this study:

1. Independent Variable

According to Hatch and Lazaraton (1999:63-64), an independent variable is a variable that the reseacher’s suspects may relate to or influence the dependent variable. In this study, independent variable is morphological awareness.

2. Dependent Variable

Meanwhile, a dependent variable is a variable that is influenced by independent variable. The dependent variable in this study is vocabulary size.

3.3.Subjects of Study

The subjects of this study are students in Smart course, Pare. As Smart course has three focus of class: grammar class, speaking class, and pronunciation class, the writer only took the students from speaking class and grammar class. Students who take speaking class mean that they must take pronunciation class. It becomes the reason for the writer to leave pronunciation class as they are the same subjects in speaking class. Furthermore, in Smart course, each class takes a month to finish their study. There are two periods to start studying, on 10th and 25th every month. In this study, the writer takes 25th period on June.

Students who study grammar stay in Spring House. They only focus on learning grammar. Besides they study in Smart course, they also have two

27

general classes in their camp. The classes are in the evening (after Maghrib) and in the morning (after Shubuh). The participants in Spring house were 21 (male) students. Meanwhile, students who study speaking stay in S’TORY (Smart Dormitory). This S’tory are divided into two S’tory; female S’tory (S’tory 2) and male S’tory (S’tory 5). They only focus on speaking and have two general classes in their camp (in the evening and in the morning). The participants in S’tory 2 were 10 students and the participants in S’tory 5 were 11 students. Thus, total of the participants both grammar and speaking class were 42 students.

In Smart course, each class takes a month to finish their study. There are two periods to start studying, on 10th and 25th every month. In this study, the writer takes 25th period on June.

3.4.Research Instruments

To answer the research question of morphological awareness and its relationship to vocabulary size, two instruments used tests are adapted to the purpose of the study: Vocabulary Level Test (VLT) version 2 adapted by I.S.P. Nation and Morphological Awareness Test with its subtests: Morpheme Identification test adapted by Al-Farsi (2008) and Morphological Structure test adapted by McBride Chang et al,. (2005). The details are described below:

28

A.Vocabulary Level Test (VLT)

Vocabulary Level Test (VLT) is a test based on word frequency count. In this study, the writer used vocabulary level test version 2 adapted by I.S.P Nation (2000). This test was prepared to assess the students’ vocabulary size. The aim of this test is to measure the students’ vocabulary size based on certain levels. This test consists of three levels (2,000 word level, 3,000 word level, and 5,000 word level). Each level consists of ten parts that include six lexical items and three phrases, so there are 30 items in every level and 90 items overall. The test used a matching format that correspond the lexical items to the phrases as in the following example, where three lexical items are being tested (horse, pencil, and wall):

1 business

2 clock _____ part of house

3 horse _____ animal with four legs 4 pencil _____ something used for writing 5 shoe

6 wall

This test requires test takers to match lexical items which correspond to the phrases by writing only the number of lexical items next to each phrase. The test takers are given 30 minutes to complete this test. The score of each lexical item chosen correctly is one point. Since the vocabulary level test in this study consists of three levels, the highest possible score is 90 points. If the

29

test takers do not really know the meaning of a lexical item, they are not allowed to guess the answer. This was aimed to get the valid result of their vocabulary knowledge.

B.Morphological Awareness Test

The morphological awareness test is adapted from McBride-Chang et al (2005) and Al-Farsi (2007). This test was used to measure the ability of students to reflect and manipulate morphemic units in English. Chang et al (2005:421) stated that this test requires students to make use of linguistic knowledge to derive new meaning. This test is divided into two parts: morpheme identification test and morphological structure test as in the following description.

1. Morpheme identification test

The morpheme identification test measures the ability of students to guess the meaning by using morpheme. This test was adapted from Al-Farsi (2007). This test was compromised of 14 test items. In this test, the students were given complex words and asked to segment each item into meaningful chunks. In the following example is the instructions and sample item of the morpheme identification test.

Instruction

This test is aimed to measure your ability to guess the meaning by using morpheme. All questions are complex words. You are provided with 14 items.

30

Your task is segmenting each item into meaningful chunks. There is no separated answer sheet so that directly write your answer in the box.

Look at the following example:

The word “childhoods” can be segmented into three meaningful chunks: child, hood, and ~s. The meanings of each chunk are child (little human being), hood (the state of being), and ~s (bound morpheme indicating plural form). So, you write your answer in the following way.

2. Morphological Structure Test

Morphological structure test measures the ability of students to create new meaning by making use of inflected and derived words. This test is adapted from McBride-Chang et al (2005). This examines the students’ knowledge of lexical structure and the relation to words and within words and their constituents. All the items in this test contain neutral morphemes. This test consists of 20 items. There were two types in this test. In type 1, there are 14 items for students to complete this test. Each question consists of two sentences which contain certain word(s) typed in bold. Students are required to complete the question in the second sentence using the form as shown in the first sentence. Here is an example of type 1:

Childhoods:

31

Type 1 (Question 1-14)

There is a paper that is white in color, we call that white paper. Now there is a paper that is red in color, what do we call it?____________(red paper)

The answer for that blank space question is red paper, as it follows the form shown in the first sentence.

Meanwhile, type 2 was the test for number 15 to 20. Each question consists of two sentences which contain certain word(s) typed in bold. It is required students to answer the second sentence by giving new word forms so that it is well structured. Here is an example of type 2.

Example 1:

A. Mike is teaching Mathematic in class right now. Yesterday he did this. What did he do yesterday? Yesterday, he ____________(taught).

As the context of time indicate the past time, so the word “teaching” should be transformed into “taught” (past tense). Therefore, you should answer by completing the word “taught”.

Example 2:

A. This toy is called a doll. There are five of them. There are five__________ (dolls).

32

As the context of noun indicates noun plural, the word “doll” should be added by bound morpheme ~s into “dolls” (plural form). Therefore, you should answer “dolls” on your answer sheet.

The scoring was based on the correct answer, that is, one correct answer is scored 1; one wrong answer is scored 0. Morpheme identification test is segmenting the word(s) into meaningful chunks, so the score of this test is based on number of meaningful chunks. There are 36 total points of meaningful chunks which contain 3 inflectional affixes, 18 stem words, and 15 derivational affixes. Meanwhile, the score of morphological structure test is counted in each item. This test consists of 20 items which means that the total score of this test is 20 points. Therefore, the total score of morphological awareness tests are 56 points.

3.4.1. Instrument Validation

The test can be said valid if the test measures the objects to be measured. An instrument should be valid for the purpose of testing something (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991:539-540). To measure whether the test has a good validity, the writer used content validity and face validity.

a. Content Validity

Content validity represents our judgment regarding how representative and comprehensive a test is. It has to do with how well a test or observation instrument tests what it purports to test (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991:539). To

33

get the content validity, the test for vocabulary size which is adapted from I.S.P. Nation is tried out to various students. The try out test was the original test from Nation. As the participants in this study were students in a course whom are in the various ages and major of previous study, the writer gave the try out to various students; 2 fresh graduated students from Senior High School, 1 student in semester 2 majoring English, 1 student in semester 4 majoring English, 1 student in semester 6 majoring English, 1 student in semester 8 majoring English, I student in semester 6 majoring non-English, and 1 student from master’s program. The total participants were 8 students from different major and ages.

Those participants were not only did try out of VLT test but also Morphological Awareness test as it was also tests adapted from McBride-Chang et al and Al-Farsi. Besides, this try out test is to measure whether the content is valid or not, this was also held to measure the time to conduct the real test.

b. Face Validity

Face validity relates to content validity. However, face validity has more to do with how easy it will be to convince our students, our peers, and other researchers that a particular test actually measures what we say it measures (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991:540). In this study, the writer asked an expert validation to valid this test. An expert validation was taken from an

34

English lecturer in UIN-SA Surabaya, Miss Ika Fitriani, M.Pd. This process of face validation took 3 days. First day, the writer got many revisions. Then in the second day, the writer got the assignment to valid the test of this study with a minor revision which was revised in day 3.

3.4.2. Scoring System

In this study, the writer used Arikunto’s formula to score the result test of students. The score of the tests were calculated by using the following formula: S = 100

Where:

S : the score of the test

R : the total of the right number N : the total items

(Arikunto, 1997: 212)

3.5.Research Procedures

In conducting this study, the writer used the steps as follows: 1) Stating research problem

2) Determining the objective

The objective in this study was to find out whether there is any relationship between students’ morphological awareness and their English vocabulary size.

35

3) Determining the subject of study

In this study, the participants of this study were students of Smart Course, Pare who study in grammar class and speaking class.

4) Constructing research instrument The test consists of two tests:

 Test 1 Vocabulary Level Test (90 items)

 Test 2 Morphological Awareness Test (36 items) 5) Conducting Validation

 Expert validation: it was conducted by an English lecturer.

 Try out validation: the try out was conducted in different ages and majors. Students who are from English department, non-English department, fresh graduated from senior high school, and master’s program were taken to conduct the try out. The aim of this try out was to know the quality of the test and the result of time duration during doing the test, and determine which item of the test should be revised for the real test and determine the long duration during doing the test. 6) Conducting the test

The test was administered over two days to minimize fatigue. The first day of testing consisted of morphological awareness test. It was conducted on June 17th, 2016. The second day of the test was vocabulary level test. It was conducted on June 18th, 2016. These date were taken to conduct the test as the

36

students had spent more than 25 days in their camp and course. This test was conducted in each camp; Spring house, S’tory 2, and S’tory 5. The participants received the question papers and answer sheet with instructions for each test clearly. They were given 30 minutes on each test day to complete the test.

7) Analyzing data

a. The data were divided into grammar class and speaking class. The writer used the frequency distribution score and mean (Subana et al, 2000:48) b. The total score of MA and VLT’s students both in grammar and speaking

class was analyzed by Pearson Product Moment Correlation Formula. After getting the result, the writer then calculated once more which is computed by using SPSS 16.0 to get the valid result.

3.6.Data Analysis

There are two variables in this study, one dependent variable and one independent variable. In this study, morphological awareness is independent variable as it is assumed that morphological awareness influences the vocabulary size. Hence, vocabulary size is as dependent variable as it is influenced by morphological awareness. Since this study was correlation study, to collect the data, the writer used tests for those variables which were adapted by experts.

37

To investigate the morphological awareness test and VLT, the writer used Subana (2000) calculation to get the result of morphological awareness test and VLT of both grammar and speaking class. These are four steps to make frequency distribution (Subana et al, 2000:48):

1. Looking for maximum and minimum score 2. Looking for interval: P =

a. Counting Range (R)

R = maximum data – minimum data

b. Counting amount of students (K) with Sturges: K = 1 + 3,3 log. N

3. Counting Interval (P) P =

4. Deciding mean

Deciding qualification of Variable (variable X or variable Y)

After that, in order to correlate both variables (variable X and Y), the total scores of MA test and VLT both grammar and speaking class was combined. Then, the correlation was calculated by using Pearson Product Moment Formula:

38

rxy = coefficient correlation between variable X and Y N = amount of Students

xy = score of multiplication of X and Y x = score of variable X

y = score of variable Y

After getting the result of Pearson Product Moment Formula, the writer then went to the statistical analysis using SPSS 16.0 (Statistical Program for Social Sciences).

3.6.1. Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing was done by comparing rvalue with rtable product Pearson Product moment with dk = n with coefficient correlation at the significant 5% or 0.05 margin of error. The criteria of hypothesis testing (r) are accepted H0 if rvalue < rtable or rejected H0 if rvalue rtable. To know the interpretation of the rxy, it is interpretated as follows: (Sudijono, 2012:193)

Table 3.1

interpretation of r Pearson Product Moment

r Product Moment Interpretation

0,00 - 0,20 There is correlation between variable X and

variable Y, but the correlation is very weak/low. So that, it is reputedly none correlation.

39

0,21 – 0,40 There is weak/low correlation between variable X and variable Y.

0,41 – 0,70 There is correlation between variable X and variable Y in the average.

0,71 - 0,90 There is correlation between variable X and variable Y in high/strong,

0,90 – 1,00 There is correlation between variable X and variable Y in very high/very strong.

40

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter consists of findings: the extent of morphological awareness of students, the extent of vocabulary size of students, and the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of students in Smart course, Pare, and discussion.

4.1. Findings

4.1.1. The Extent of Students’ Morphological Awareness in Smart Course, Pare

To find the extent of morphological awareness of students in Smart course, it counted the scores of morphological awareness (MA) test as follows:

Table 4.1

Total Scores of morphological awareness test of students in Smart Course, Pare

No NAME

RIGHT ANSWERS OF MA TOTAL OF RIGHT ANSWERS (MA 1 & MA

2)

SCORE S= 100 MA 1 MA 2

1 Nashran Humaidi 26 16 42 75

2 Naufal E 18 17 35 62,5

3 M.Burhanuddin R 27 17 44 79

4 Maruli Chaniago 32 14 46 82

5 Joni 18 12 30 54

41

7 Aziz 28 18 46 82

8 M.Iqbal Ma’rul 22 20 42 75

9 Diki Nur Faiz 26 16 42 75

10 Yusup Miranda 31 19 50 89

11 Muh Farid Hidayat 26 20 46 82

12 Opik 24 19 43 77

13 Fikri 27 19 46 82

14 Dwi Agus K 20 16 36 64

15 Abu Bakar S 21 14 35 62,5

16 Imam Widodo 13 4 17 30

17 Ismail Shaleh 27 15 52 75

18 Fitra 24 13 37 66

19 Mustafah 24 14 38 68

20 Zaid Ardha A L A 21 18 39 70

21 Febriyan Adi S 28 14 32 57

22 Frischa Amelia 20 15 35 62,5

23 Lusiana Indah P 17 11 28 50

24 Sally Kurnia S 23 16 39 70

25 Rizky Camelina 24 15 39 70

26 Alina Syafitri 17 9 26 46

27 Hana 21 11 32 57

28 Pipit Suci 29 19 48 86

29 Ariska Tiara Putri 23 17 40 71

30 Lela 15 15 30 54

31 Zanuba 24 15 39 70

32 Andi Jaya 30 20 50 89

33 Virtuoso S 26 19 45 80

34 Arianto K 30 18 48 86

35 Arip 24 14 38 68

36 Irdan 19 14 33 59

37 Alifian Ferry A 13 4 17 30

38 Pangestu 16 5 21 37,5

39 Ahmat Sangadji 19 12 31 55

40 Nuzul Banda 24 15 39 70

41 Paul Baru 21 14 35 62,5

42

The data of students’ morphological awareness were collected through morphological awareness test conducted on June, 17th 2016. This test is divided into two parts. Part 1 (MA 1) was Morpheme identification test. It consists of 14 items with total score 36 points where each item has more than two points. Meanwhile, part 2 (MA 2) was morphological structure test. It consists of 20 items which were scored one point in each item. Thus, total score of this test are 56 points. As the subjects of the participants were taken from grammar class and speaking class, the writer gave the scores of students tests based on their class clearly into below:

Table 4.2

Scores of morphological awareness test of students in the Grammar class

No NAME

RIGHT ANSWERS OF MA TOTAL OF RIGHT ANSWERS

(MA 1 & MA 2)

SCORE S= 100 MA 1 MA 2

1 Nashran Humaidi 26 16 42 75

2 Naufal E 18 17 35 62,5

3 M.Burhanuddin R 27 17 44 79

4 Maruli Chaniago 32 14 46 82

5 Joni 18 12 30 54

6 M.Imran H. 28 17 45 80

7 Aziz 28 18 46 82

8 M.Iqbal Ma’rul 22 20 42 75

9 Diki Nur Faiz 26 16 42 75

10 Yusup Miranda 31 19 50 89

11 Muh Farid Hidayat 26 20 46 82

12 Opik 24 19 43 77

43

14 Dwi Agus K 20 16 36 64

15 Abu Bakar S 21 14 35 62,5

16 Imam Widodo 13 4 17 30

17 Ismail Shaleh 27 15 52 75

18 Fitra 24 13 37 66

19 Mustafah 24 14 38 68

20 Zaid Ardha A L A 21 18 39 70

21 Febriyan Adi S 28 14 32 57

Based on the total score of MA test of student in grammar class, frequency distribution would be given as frequency distribution score and mean. In order to make distribution, there were several steps as follow:

1) Looking for maximum and minimum score Maximum score = 89

Minimum score = 30 2) Looking for interval

P =

a) Counting Range (R)

R = maximum data – minimum data R = 89 – 30

R = 59

b) Counting amount of students (K) with Sturges: K = 1 + 3,3 log. N

44

K = 1 + 3,3 log. 21 K = 1 + 3,3 . 1,32 K = 1 + 4,36

K = 5,36 integrated into 5 c) Interval (P)

P =

P =

P = 11,8 integrated into 12 3) Deciding Mean

Based on the table above, the maximum score of MA test was 89. While, the minimum score of MA score was 30. In order to know the mean of variable x (MA), it counted as follow:

Table 4.3

Frequency Distribution Mean Score of MA test of students in Smart Course, Pare

Interval F F% X Fx Mean

30 – 41 1 4,8% 35,5 35,5

M=

= 42 – 53 0 0% 47,5 0

45

66 – 77 8 38,1% 71,5 572 = 70,9

78 – 89 7 33,3% 83,5 584,5

Jumlah N= 21 100% 1489,5

4) Deciding qualification of variable X

Based on the result of the table above, the mean of students in grammar class was 70,9. In order to know the quality of the result, the table below was given:

Table 4.4

Quality of Variable of the Score Students’ MA test

Interval Quality

81 – 100 Very Good

61 – 80 Good

41 – 60 Enough

21 – 40 Low

46

Based on the table above, the writer concluded that mean score of students in grammar class in MA test was categorized in the interval 61 - 80. It meant that the morphological awareness of students was “Good”.

Table 4.5

Scores of morphological awareness test of students in speaking class

No NAME

RIGHT ANSWERS OF MA TOTAL OF RIGHT ANSWERS

(MA 1 & MA 2)

SCORE S= 100 MA 1 MA 2

1 Frischa Amelia 20 15 35 62,5

2 Lusiana Indah P 17 11 28 50

3 Sally Kurnia S 23 16 39 70

4 Rizky Camelina 24 15 39 70

5 Alina Syafitri 17 9 26 46

6 Hana 21 11 32 57

7 Pipit Suci 29 19 48 86

8 Ariska Tiara Putri 23 17 40 71

9 Lela 15 15 30 54

10 Zanuba 24 15 39 70

11 Andi Jaya 30 20 50 89

12 Virtuoso S 26 19 45 80

13 Arianto K 30 18 48 86

14 Arip 24 14 38 68

15 Irdan 19 14 33 59

16 Alifian Ferry A 13 4 17 30

17 Pangestu 16 5 21 37,5

18 Ahmat Sangadji 19 12 31 55

19 Nuzul Banda 24 15 39 70

20 Paul Baru 21 14 35 62,5

47

Based on the total score of MA test of student in speaking class, frequency distribution would be given as frequency distribution score and mean. In order to make distribution, there were several steps as follow:

1) Looking for maximum and minimum score Maximum score = 89

Minimum score = 30 2) Looking for interval

P =

a) Counting Range (R)

R = maximum data – minimum data R = 89 – 30

R = 59

b) Counting amount of students (K) with Sturges: K = 1 + 3,3 log. N

K = 1 + 3,3 log. 21 K = 1 + 3,3 . 1,32 K = 1 + 4,36

K = 5,36 integrated into 5 c) Interval (P)

48

P =

P =

P = 11,8 integrated into 12 d) Deciding Mean

Based on the table above, the maximum score of MA test was 89. While, the minimum score of MA score was 30. In order to know the mean of variable x (MA), it counted as follow:

Tabel 4.6

Frequency Distribution Mean Score of MA test of students in speaking class

Interval F F% X Fx Mean

30 – 41 2 9,5% 35,5 71

M=

=

= 66,3 42 – 53 1 4,76% 47,5 47,1

54 – 65 6 28,6% 59,5 357

66 – 77 7 33,3% 71,5 500,5

78 – 89 5 23,8% 83,5 417,5

49

e) Deciding qualification of variable X

Based on the result of the table above, the mean of students in speaking class was 66. In order to know the quality of the result, the table below was given:

Table 4.7

Quality of Variable of the Score Students’ MA test

Interval Quality

81 – 100 Very Good

61 – 80 Good

41 – 60 Enough

21 – 40 Low

00 – 20 Poor

Based on the table above, the writer concluded that mean score of students in speaking class in MA test was categorized in the interval 61 - 80. It meant that the morphological awareness of students was “Good”.

Based on the results of MA test both in grammar and speaking class, it showed that the mean score of grammar class was 71 while,

50

speaking class was 66. Thus, the morphological awareness of students in grammar class was higher than speaking class.

4.1.2. The Extent of Vocabulary Size of Students in Smart Course, Pare

To find the extent of vocabulary size of students in Smart course, it counted the scores of Vocabulary Level Test (VLT) test as follows:

Table 4.8

Total Scores of VLT’s Students in Smart Course, Pare

No NAME

VLT TOTAL OF

RIGHT ANSWERS (2000, 3000,

5000)

SCORE S= 100 2000 3000 5000

1 Nashran H. 28 20 11 59 66

2 Naufal E 24 16 14 54 60

3 M.Burhanuddin R. 21 16 10 47 52 4 Maruli Chaniago 29 26 22 77 85,5

5 Joni 23 18 8 49 54

6 M.Imran H. 26 20 24 70 78

7 Aziz 26 23 18 67 74

8 M.I bal Ma’ ul 27 23 10 60 67

9 Diki Nur Faiz 25 21 8 54 60 10 Yusup Miranda 29 28 30 87 97 11 M.Farid Hidayat 25 29 27 81 90

12 Opik 11 13 3 27 30

13 Fikri 26 19 18 63 70

14 Dwi Agus K 16 11 8 35 39

15 Abu Bakar S. 17 15 13 45 50

16 Imam Widodo 14 10 4 28 31

17 Ismail Shaleh 12 9 3 24 27

18 Fitra 8 9 10 27 30

51

20 Zaid Ardha 15 14 10 39 43 21 Febriyan Adi S 7 3 2 12 13 22 Frischa Amelia 9 11 3 23 26 23 Lusiana Indah P 7 5 5 17 19 24 Sally Kurnia S 24 18 22 64 71 25 Rizky Camelina 17 13 4 34 38 26 Alina Syafitri 20 15 6 41 45,5

27 Hana 16 16 9 41 45,5

28 Pipit Suci 22 20 12 54 60

29 Ariska Tiara Putri 18 16 10 44 49

30 Lela 10 8 2 20 22

31 Zanuba 6 10 3 19 21

32 Andi Jaya 17 16 14 47 52

33 Virtuoso S 21 19 9 49 54

34 Arianto K 9 10 10 29 32

35 Arip 19 16 13 48 53

36 Irdan 12 3 10 25 28

37 Febriyan Adi S 7 3 2 12 13

38 Pangestu 9 4 7 20 22

39 Ahmat Sangadji 9 7 0 16 18

40 Nuzul Banda 11 12 2 25 28

41 Paul Baru 18 11 3 32 35,5

42 Urbanus Momo 8 6 5 19 21

The data of students’ vocabulary size were collected through VLT conducted on June, 18th 2016. This test consists of 3 levels; 2,000 word-level, 3,000 word-word-level, and 5,000 word-level. Each level consists of ten parts where 3 items are in each part. Thus, total of the items are 30 in each level. Overall this test consists of 90 items. As each item scored 1 point, the total score of this test are 90 points. In order to know the results of students

52

both in grammar class and speaking class, the writer gave the data clearly into below:

Table 4.9

Scores of VLT’s Students in Grammar Class

No NAME

VLT TOTAL OF

RIGHT ANSWERS (2000, 3000,

5000)

SCORE S= 100 2000 3000 5000

1 Nashran H. 28 20 11 59 66

2 Naufal E 24 16 14 54 60

3 M.Burhanuddin R. 21 16 10 47 52 4 Maruli Chaniago 29 26 22 77 85,5

5 Joni 23 18 8 49 54

6 M.Imran H. 26 20 24 70 78

7 Aziz 26 23 18 67 74

8 M.I bal Ma’ ul 27 23 10 60 67

9 Diki Nur Faiz 25 21 8 54 60 10 Yusup Miranda 29 28 30 87 97 11 M.Farid Hidayat 25 29 27 81 90

12 Opik 11 13 3 27 30

13 Fikri 26 19 18 63 70

14 Dwi Agus K 16 11 8 35 39

15 Abu Bakar S. 17 15 13 45 50

16 Imam Widodo 14 10 4 28 31

17 Ismail Shaleh 12 9 3 24 27

18 Fitra 8 9 10 27 30

19 Mustafah 7 9 7 23 26

20 Zaid Ardha 15 14 10 39 43 21 Febriyan Adi S 7 3 2 12 13

53

Based on the total score of VLT, frequency distribution would be given as frequency distribution score and mean. In order to make distribution, there were several steps as follow:

1) Looking for maximum and minimum score Maximum score = 97

Minimum score = 13

2) Looking for interval P =

a) Counting Range (R)

R = maximum data – minimum data R = 97 – 13

R = 84

b) Counting amount of students (K) with Sturges: K = 1 + 3,3 log. N

K = 1 + 3,3 log. 21 K = 1 + 3,3 . 1,32 K = 1 + 4,36

K = 5,36 integrated into 5 c) Interval (P)

54

P =

P = 16,8 integrated into 17 3) Deciding Mean

Based on the table above, the maximum score of VLT was 97. While, the minimum score of VLT score was 13. In order to know the mean of variable Y (VLT), it counted as follow:

Table 4.10

Frequency Distribution Mean Score of VLT of Grammar Class

Interval F F% X Fx Mean

13 – 29 3 14,2% 21 63

M=

=

= 54,1 30 – 46 5 23,9% 38 190

47 – 63 6 28,6% 55 330

64 – 80 4 19% 72 288

81 – 97 3 14,2% 89 267

Jumlah N=21 100% 1138

55

Based on the result of the table above, mean of the students’ vocabulary size in grammar class was 54,1. In order to know the quality of the result, the table below was given:

Table 4.11

Quality of Variable of the Result Students’ MA test

Interval Quality

81 – 100 Very Good

61 – 80 Good

41 – 60 Enough

21 – 40 Low

00 – 20 Poor

Based on the table above, it concluded that mean score of students’ VLT in grammar class was categorized in the interval 41 - 60. It meant that the vocabulary size of students was “Enough”.

56

Table 4.12

Scores of VLT Students in Speaking Class

No NAME

VLT TOTAL OF

RIGHT ANSWERS (2000, 3000,

5000)

SCORE S= 100 2000 3000 5000

1 Frischa Amelia 9 11 3 23 26 2 Lusiana Indah P 7 5 5 17 19 3 Sally Kurnia S 24 18 22 64 71 4 Rizky Camelina 17 13 4 34 38 5 Alina Syafitri 20 15 6 41 45,5

6 Hana 16 16 9 41 45,5

7 Pipit Suci 22 20 12 54 60

8 Ariska Tiara Putri 18 16 10 44 49

9 Lela 10 8 2 20 22

10 Zanuba 6 10 3 19 21

11 Andi Jaya 17 16 14 47 52

12 Virtuoso S 21 19 9 49 54

13 Arianto K 9 10 10 29 32

14 Arip 19 16 13 48 53

15 Irdan 12 3 10 25 28

16 Febriyan Adi S 7 3 2 12 13

17 Pangestu 9 4 7 20 22

18 Ahmat Sangadji 9 7 0 16 18

19 Nuzul Banda 11 12 2 25 28

20 Paul Baru 18 11 3 32 35,5

21 Urbanus Momo 8 6 5 19 21

Based on the total score of VLT, frequency distribution would be given as frequency distribution score and mean. In order to make distribution, there were several steps as follow:

68

correlation between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of students in SMA Bandar Lampung. In addition, Al-Farsi (2008) analyzed morphological awareness and its relationship to vocabulary knowledge and morphological complexity among Omani EFL University students. The result showed that no relationships were found between morphological awareness and vocabulary size and word complexity among Omani University students. Based on the previous studies, the writer got the gap to investigate students in Smart course, Pare as EFL and to find out whether any relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of students in a course. The result showed that there was relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of Smart course with the level of correlation in average.

In this research, the analysis presented the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of students in Smart course. This is expected that the result of this study might be useful for reader to know the relationship of morphological awareness and vocabulary size. Thus, the reader is able to use morphological strategy to acquire vocabulary knowledge.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

5.1. Conclusion

This study focused on the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size of students in Smart course, Pare. The subjects of this study were 42 students. The instruments used in this study were morpheme identification test adapted from Al-Farsi (2008), morphological structure test adapted from McBride Chang et al (2005), and vocabulary level test adapted from I.S.P. Nation (2000). The data was analyzed by Pearson Product Moment Formula and was helped by SPSS 16.0. in order to make the data more valid. Based on the finding, there is correlation between morphological awareness (X) and vocabulary size (Y) of students in Smart course, Pare. The Pearson analysis produced an average positive correlation of 0,578, which means that morphological awareness was found to be averagely correlated with their English vocabulary size. This result was shown in the hypothesis testing that the coefficient correlation is in the average, in the significant at 0,05 –level margin of error. The coefficient correlation is higher than the critical value of rtable (0,578 > 0,304). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and the research hypothesis was accepted that which stated that if the students obtained high score in morphological awareness, they tended to get high score in English vocabulary size. In addition, the result both MA test and VLT of grammar class speaking class showed that grammar students had higher scores than speaking

70

students. Overall, this study implied that morphological awareness can be applied as vocabulary learning strategy to improve students’ vocabulary size.

5.2. Suggestion

This study revealed some insightful finding in English morphology and vocabulary learning process. However, there was also the weakness that should be looked at for future study. The problem was the total subjects as the participants in this study were only 42 students. It was because the total number of students in Smart course who focus on grammar and speaking are only a few students. It would be better for future researcher to take the total number of participants more than this study in order to enrich the data analysis.

For the future studies, the writer suggests to take the total number of participants more than this study in order to enrich the data analysis. In addition, the writer suggest the further researchers to use the different instrument as in the most previous studies, they use the same instruments to measure their research.

73

REFERENCES

Anglin, J. M., Miller, G. A., & Wakefield, P. C. 1993. Vocabulary Development: A Morphological Analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vocabulary Development: A Morphological Analysis, 58(10), 1-186.

Al-Farsi, B. 2008. Morphological Awareness And Its Relationship To Vocabulary Knowledge And Morphological Complexity Among Omani EFL University Students. Retrieved on March, 01st 2016 from www.uq.edu.au.

Arikunto, S. 1997. Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Aronoff, M., & Fudeman, K. 2005. What is morphology?(3- 21). Malden: Blackwell. Retrieved on March, 8th 2016 from www.faculty.mu.eu.sa.

Butler, S., Urrutia, K., Buenger, A., Gonzalez, N., Hunt, M., & Eisenhart, C. 2010. A Research Synthesis: A Review of the Current Research on Vocabulary Instruction. U.S.A: National Reading Technical Assistance Center.

Carlisle, J.F. 1995. Morphological Awareness and Early Reading Achievement. New Jersey: Erlbaum. Retrieved on March, 8th 2016 from

www.sciencedirect.com_.

Chang, C. M., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., W.-Y., B., & Chow, H. S. 2005. The Role of Morphological Awareness in Vocabulary Acquisition in English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 415–435. Retrieved on April, 12nd 2016 from

www.journal.cambridge.org/article.

73

Green, L., Wolter, J.A. 2013. Morphological Awareness Intervention in School-Age Children With Language and Literacy Deficits A Case Study. Top Lang Disorders Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 27–41. Retrieved on April, 18th 2016 from

www.alliedhealth.ceconnection.com.

Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. 1991. The Research Manual: Design And Statistics For Applied Linguistics. United States of America: Heinle & Heinle Pubisher. Jawad, H.F., Yasin, M. Subakir. 2015. Morphological Awareness and Its

Relationship to Vocabulary Knowledge Complexity among Iraqi EFL University Students. International Journal of Education and Research: vol. 3 No. 6 June 2015. Retrieved on May 04th 2016 from

www.ijern.com/journal/2015/June-2015/18.pdf.

Latifi, Z., Kasmani, M.B., Talebi, S.H. 2012. Morphological Awareness And Its Relationship To Vocabulary Size And Morphological Complexity Among Iranian EFL University Students. Vol. 1. No. 4. November 2012. Retrieved on April, 4th 2016 from http://www.ajssh.leena-luna.co.jp/

Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. 2004. Testing Vocabulary Knowledge: Size, Strength And Computer Adaptiveness. Language Learning 54, 399-436. Retrieved on May 04th 2016 from www.u.arizona.edu/~rgolden/LanguageLearning.pdf

Maag, L. K. 2007. Measuring Morphological Awareness In Adult Readers: Implications For Vocabulary Development.

Nation., I. S. P. 2000. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nurhemida. 2007. The Relationship between Morphological Awareness and English Vocabulary Knowledge of Senior High School Students. Retrieved on March, 18th 2016 from www.asian-efl-journal.com

73

Redman, S. 1997. English Vocabulary in Use: pre-intermediate & intermediate. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers, W. M. 1970. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rosalina, S. 2012. Correlation Between Morphological Awareness And English Vocabulary Size At The Third Grade Of Sma Al - Azhar 3 Bandar Lampung. Retrieved on May 04th 2016 from digilib.unila.ac.id/9433/

Shahov, V. P. 2012. Measuring L2 Perspective & Productive Vocabulary Knowledge. Language Studies Working Paper. Vol 4 (2012) 37-45. Retrieved on May 04th 2016 from academia.edu.

Subana. 2000. Statistik Pendidikan. Bandung: CV PUSTAKA SETIA.

Sudjono,Anas. 2012. Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT. RajaGrafindo Persada. Cet. Ke-24.

Tabatabaei, O. 2011. The Relationship between Morphological Awareness and Vocabulary Size of EFL Learners. English Language Teaching. Vol. 4, No. 4; December 2011. Retrieved on May, 04 2016 from www.ccsenet.org/elt. Wahyuni, Harum Dwi. 2015. Vocabulary Size and Its Correlation to the Spoken

Word Recognition in Literal Listening. Retrieved May 04th 2016 from

www.digilib.uinsa

Webster, 1988. The Next Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of English Language. Encyclopedia Edition. New York: Lexicon Publication Inc.