THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING …

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING

STRATEGIES (LLS) AND STUDENTS THINKING STYLES AT

TWELVE GRADE OF SMA NEGERI 5 SELAYAR

A THESIS

submitted as Fulfillment to Accomplish Sarjana Degree

at Faculry of Teacher Training and Education

Muhammadiyah University of Makassar

SUMIATI

10535648315

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTEMENT

FAKULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR

2020

iv

UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH MAKASSAR

FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN

Jln. Sultan Alauddin No.259 Telp (0411) 860 132 Makassar 90221

SURAT PERNYATAAN

Saya yang bertandatangan di bawah ini:

Nama : SUMIATI

Judul : The Correlation Between Language Learning

Strategies (LLS) And Students Thinking Styles

At Twelve Grade Of Sma Negeri 5 Selayar

No. Stambuk : 10535648315

Program : Strata Satu (S1) Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Dengan ini menyatakan bahwa:

Skripsi yang saya ajukan di depan tim penguji adalah hasil karya saya

sendiri. Bukan hasil ciplakan atau dibuatkan oleh siapa pun.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan penuh kesadaran.

Makassar, 2020

Yang Membuat Pernyataan

SUMIATI

v

UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH MAKASSAR

FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN

Jln. Sultan Alauddin No.259 Telp (0411) 860 132 Makassar 90221

SURAT PERJANJIAN

Saya yang bertandatangan di bawah ini:

Name : SUMIATI

Reg. No : 10535648315

Program : Strata Satu (S1) Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Title : The Correlation Between Language Learning

Strategies (LLS) And Students Thinking Styles At

Twelve Grade Of Sma Negeri 5 Selayar

Dengan ini menyatakan perjanjian sebagai berikut:

1. Mulai dari penyusunan proposal sampai selesainya skripsi saya, saya akan

menyusun skripsi sendiri.

2. Dalam menyusun skripsi saya, saya akan selalu melakukan konsultasi dengan

pembimbing

3. Saya tidak akan melakukan penjiplakan (plagiat) dalam penyusunan skripsi

saya

4. Apabila melanggar perjanjian pada butir 1, 2, dan 3 maka saya bersedia

menerima sanksi sesuai aturan yang berlaku.

Demikian surat perjanjian ini saya buat dengan penuh kesadaran.

Makassar, 2020

Yang Membuat Pernyataan

SUMIATI

vi

MOTTO

MEMULAI DENGAN PENUH KEYAKINAN

MENJALANKAN DENGAN PENUH KEIKHLASAN

MENYELESAIKAN DENGAN PENUHAN KEBAHAGIAN

( SUMIATI )

vii

ABSTRACT

SUMIATI. 10535648315. 2019.The Correlation Between Language Learning

Strategies and Students Thinking Styles at SMA Negari 5 Selayar (Descriptive

Quantitative Research). Guided by Ummi Khaerati Syam and Awalia Azis.

A Thesis of English Department, the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,

Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.

This study aims to determine the correlation between language learning

strategies and students thinking styles in English learning on students of class XII

SMA Negeri 5 Selayar. Sampling technique used in the study was descriptive

research. The population in this research is XII IPS1, XII IPS2 and XII IPA in

SMA Negeri 5 Selayar 2018/2019.

The respondent of this study were 25 students. researcher used two

questionnaire, the first questionnaire about language learning strategies and the

second questionnaire about students thinking styles. Based on the study showed

the average value for questionnaire of language learning strategies was 1.585 and

the average value of the students thinking styles was 2.271.

Based on the result of data processing and analysis, the researcher

concluded that there was a significant (variable X) expressed good with an

average value of 63.4% and (variable Y) expressed quit with an average value of

90,84% while the results of the product moment correlation analysis rcount =14,3

while rtable = 0,413. So HA was accepted and HO was rejected from the learning

outcome of students of class XII in SMA Negeri 5 Selayar. Thus there was a

positive and there was significant correlation between language learning and

students thinkung styles.

Key Word : Correlation, Language Learning Strategies, Students Thinking

Styles

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

By reciting bismillahirrahmanirrahim, praise the presence of Allah SWT,

for the abundance of His grance, so that the author can complite the thesis with

the title: The Correlation Between Language Learning Strategies and Students

Thinking Styles of SMAN 5 Selayar. This was to fulfill one of the requirements

for completing studies as well as in order to obtain a bacheleor of education egree

in the English Education departement faculty of Teacher Training and Education


Awards and thank you for my beloved father Hamarung and my beloved

mother Ice, who have given her endless love, material, and moral help patiently

until the end of her study. The researcher also give her appreciantion for beloved

brother Jafar, Saldianto, Bambang, for belovod sister Jumiati, Asiah and her

family who always make her smile, give support, and pray for her succes. May

Allah SWT always give the grace of health, gift and the bestness of the good

budbs that have been given to the author.

The researcher great thanks are due to Ummi Khaerati Syam, S.Pd.,M.Pd

her first consultant and Awalia Azis, S.Pd.,M.Pd her second consultant who have

helped writing this thesis

Special thanks are give to Muhammadiyah University of Makassar because

of giving an opportunity to the reseacher in getting undergraduate education. And

great thanks also for:

ix

1. Prof Dr. H. Abd Rahman Rahim, SE.,MM. The Rector of the


2. Erwin Akib, S.Pd., P.Hd., The Dean of Training and Education Faculty

3. Ummy Khaerati Syam, S.Pd.,M.Pd. The Head English Education

Department FKIP Muhammadiyah University of Makassar

4. All lectures of the FKIP Muhammadiyah University Of Makassar

especially of the English Department for their guidance during her

study.

5. All her friends in the Department of English Education, especially for G

class 2015 for their support and friendship. She also would like to thank

Andi Tendri wulandari, Elvyra Trisna Fadillah, Yuli, Ema for wonder

friendship. And give thanks to Posko Muanjah Sidrap Especially Ibu Ice

squad.

6. All my family in Pondok Herman, especially Ibu and Bapak kos,

andika,misna, risda, bungsu, sutra.

Finally, by recing Alhamdulillahi Rabbil’ Alamiin, the researcher has

been success to finish her work or research according to the target of time

and also target of the research, nothing left or forgetten to do.

Researcher,

Sumiati

ix

TABLE OF CONTENT

TITTLE OF PAGE

APPROVAL SHEET ......................................................................................... i

COUNSELLING SHEET ................................................................................. ii

PERSETUJUAN JUDUL ................................................................................ iv

PENGAJUAN JUDUL ...................................................................................... v

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................. vii

TABEL OF CONTENT ................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLE ............................................................................................. xi

LIST OF FIGURE .......................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1

A. Background .......................................................................................... 1

B. Problem Statement ............................................................................... 4

C. Object of The Research ......................................................................... 4

D. Significance of The Research ............................................................... 4

E. Scope of The The Research .................................................................. 5

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................ 6

A. Previous Related Research Findings ..................................................... 6

B. Theoretical Framework ......................................................................... 7

1. Language Learning Srategies ........................................................... 7

2. Students Thinking Styles ............................................................... 13

C. Hypothesis of the Research ................................................................. 19

x

1. Null Hypothesis .............................................................................. 19

2. Alternative Hypothesis .................................................................. 20

D. Conceptual Frame Work ..................................................................... 20

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ...................................................... 22

A. Research Design................................................................................. 22

B. Population And Simple ...................................................................... 22

C. Research Variable .............................................................................. 22

D. Research Instrument........................................................................... 23

E. Prosedure Of Collective Date ............................................................ 23

F. Technique Of Data Analysis .............................................................. 24

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .......................................... 26

A. ResearchFindings .................................................................................. 26

1. Language Learning Strategies ......................................................... 26

2. Students’ Thinking Style ................................................................. 27

3. Hypothesis Testing .......................................................................... 31

B. Discussion ............................................................................................. 32

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION .................................. 35

A. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 35

B. Suggestion ............................................................................................. 35

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................... 37

APPENDIX

QUESTONNAIRE

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

English was the world prime language which was used in diplomacy,

education, business, economy, politic, social and culture. Many information used

English right now. English in Indonesia was a foreign language that almost every

people learn about that to grow up like the other country. Many schools in

Indonesia make English as their compulsion lesson in junior and senior high

school. Moreover, many Islamic boarding schools like Pondok Modern Gontor

Darussalam, SMAN 5 Selayar they apply English Language as their daily and all

of the students have to practise that. From that habit, students that actually do not

like English they try to understand that and they apply English language as their

daily language.

English was an International language which was used by people almost in

the whole world. Richards and Rodgers (2001: 3) state that today English was the

most Widely studied foreign language in the world. However, in Indonesia,

English was just known as the first foreign language which was very limited use

including the place, time, and environment. The were many ways and factors to

improve English language skill and depends in the students’. Every students have

their own way to think, to accept what they get, to process what they receive. The

environment of students also make impact for students to get an information.

The successful learning process was not only by the good learning

strategies and methods also depends on students’ thinking styles. The correct

2

students thinking styles make an impact for learning process. There were good

and bad factors that influence Students learning in the class. Nyikos and Oxford

(1993: 11) state that even with the best teachers and methods, students ware the

only ones who can actually do the learning. From the problems above the

researcher knows that the factors that influence the learning process depends on

how was the students thinking styles. Dweck (2006) say that there were 2 kinds of

approach in students thinking styles; they were fixed mindset and growth mindset.

In a fixed mindset, students always feels anxious and nervous to setbacks or

criticisms. Students with growth mindset feels eager to learn to boost her

performance and enjoy exploring, experimenting and stretching themself.

Students have a minds which is branched, and it call as their brain was start to

grow up but still not maximal. Usually students learn more to get new

information, science and from this process students can develop their brain again.

Students who can focus on the learning process usually they can get much

information from the learner.

According to Williams (2011) technology, for example, the use of mobile

phone can distract the students learns. This opinion was also support by Fried

(2006) who report that computer as one form of technologies, give negative effect

in the process of learning.

Even English language was the world wide prime language in this world

do not mean that there were no people who do not like English. Not all of the

students of English Education Department in SMAN 5 Selayar was truely like

English. Some students take English Education Department just like to fill empty

3

time, to do what their parents want or it can be a form from a release when she to

in another university but she get ignored. Students with that type usually when the

class was begin they are busy with what they want to do or come late to the class.

Often they are playing her smartphone in the class rather than listening to her

lecturer. In this problem it can be solved when the student interest in the strategy

of learning and from that strategy the students can change her mindset.

Furthermore, Drozdenko, Tesch, Coelho (2011) state that there are two factors

that can disturb students‟ focus in the class, that was internal and external factors.

Internal factor was coming from her own self like talking to others, sending a

message, playing a handphone, listening to music in her MP3. External factor was

a kind of disturb that are made from the other, it. Can be from her friend, teacher

was that hard to understand or it can be from outside of the class.

The way that students act can explain how they think. Every student have

differences about what they need in language learning process and their own way

to think. From this problem the researchers see they have their own strategy to

accept an information. There were some strategies in language learning strategy

that was Cognitive Learning Strategies, Metacognitive Learning Strategies,

Communication Strategies and Social Strategies. Naiman (1978:1) state that all

kind of language learning can grow well if we have enough knowledge about

learners and process of learning and teaching. Concerning with those problems,

lecturer as the main component of education was challenged to be as creative as

possible to provide opportunities for students to expose and to reinforce student

4

skills. To encourage students to practice their language, the researcher tries to help

teacher to solve the problems of students.

In this research the researcher was aim to find out the significant

relationship between language learning strategies and students thinking styles by

sharing questionnaire to the students of SMAN 5 Selayar as participants of this

research especially for language education department. For this reason, the

researcher predicts that sharing questionnaire might be useful to find out the

result. Based on the arguments that had been discussed, the researcher thinks that

it was necessary to observe and focus on language learning strategies and students

thinking styles. That was why the researcher chooses the title “The Correlation

between Language Learning Strategies and Students’ Thinking Styles”

B. Problem Statement

Based on background above, research problem of the study is formulates

in question forms: “is there any Correlation between Language Learning

Strategies and Students’ Thinking Styles at Twelve Grade SMAN 5 Selayar?

C. Objectives of the Research

Based on the problem statement above, the researcher intend to find out

whether or not the significant correlation between language learning strategies and

students’ thinking styles, at twelve grade SMAN 5 Selayar.

D. Significant of the Research

Research was something that important to do in science development,

especially for the English language learning. Hopefully this result of the research

give some benefits for the readers. It can be use in order to develop their

5

information. The researcher deliver the significant of the research as theoretically

and practically:

1. Theoretically, the findings of the research are expect to support one of the

theories on language learning and thinking styles,

2. Practically, the result of this research are expect to be beneficial:

a. As contribution to the further education research development.

b. As information and reference for English teacher in development

students’ thinking styles

E. Scope of the Research

This research limited the study about correlation between language

learning strategies especially indirect strategies (metacognitive, affective, social

used by students and their thinking styles that focus in internal and external

thinking styles.

6

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Previous Related Research Findings

In this research the researchers takes several reviews of related literature

from previous research as comparison. The first research was written by

Mahmood (2013), in his research he used questionnaire and a self report test to

analyze the correlation. In his research the objectives of his study is to find out

positive relationship between language learning strategies employed by Senior

High School (EFL) students and their thinking styles, to find out positive

relationship between language learning strategies employed by Senior High

School (EFL) students and their gender and to find out a positive relationship

between thinking styles employed by Senior High School (EFL) students and their

gender. The results obtained from the present study are more revealing that there

was a significant difference between males and females in terms of strategy

choice. It was found that the differences between the strategy use of male and

female are meaningful for memory, metacognitive, compensation, cognitive. In

other words, males use more memory, cognitive, compensation and metacognitive

strategies compare with females, but there was no significant diference between

males and females with regard to the affective and social startegy use.

according Mahmood, Hashemnezhad and Javidi (2013) and this research

was the participants from several students of Senior High Schoolespecially in

language department.

7

Mahmood, Hashemnezhad and Javidi (2013) research the objectives of the

study was to find out positive relationship between language learning strategies

employed by Senior High School (EFL) students and their thinking styles, to find

out positive relationship between language learning strategies employed by Senior

High School (EFL) students and their gender and to find out a positive

relationship between thinking styles employed by Senior High School(EFL)

students and their gender. And in this research was to know what was the

relationship between language learning strategies and students thinking styles, to

know the effect of learning strategy towards students thinking styles and the

significant correlation between language learning strategy and students thinking

styles.

The second research was written by Ahmadi, Gorjian and Pazkhah (2014).

In his research he focused on the extent of their association with reading

comprehension amongSenior High School students. The aim of his research was

to find out the significance relationship between thinking styles and use of

language learning strategies. That means students‟ thinking styles maypredict

their preference of language learning strategies. There was also a positive and

meaningful correlation between legislative and judicial thinking styles and the

total scres of language learning strategies and reading comprehension perfomance.

B. Language Learning Strategies and students thinking styles

The theoretical framework involve the discussion of Language learning

strategy and students thinking styles.

1. Language Learning Strategies

8

Learner should learn their own strategies to learn English well. Research on

language learning strategies has increased significantly since the (Alfian, 2016)

Language learning strategies have received a considerable amount of significance

since early 1970s for the crucial role they are playing in language learning. Many

researcher defined language learning strategies differently.

1970 (Alhasony, 2017). In fact, language learners develop their own ways

and use various activities to learn consciuosly and unconsciously (Alfian, 2016)

Language learning strategies have received a considerable amount of significance

since early 1970s for the crucial role they are playing in language learning. Many

researcher defined language learning strategies differently.

Hardan (2013: 1725) defines language learning strategies as steps,

behaviours and techniques used by learners to enhance and facilitate the language

acquisition. The concept of language learning strategies is received a considerable

amount of significance since early 1970 century for the crucial role they are

playing in the processes of language learning and acquisition this is supported

with what Alhasony (2017 : 256).

Ghani (2003: 12) had a extensive study on the area of language learning

strategies. She defined these stratgies as: specific actions, behaviours, step, or

technieques that students (often intertionally) use to imporeve their progress in

developing second language skill. According to her, these strategies can facilitate

the internalization, strorage, retrieval, or use of the new language.

An early definition given by Rigeney (1978: 20) who defines language

learning strategies as the often-conscious steps or behaviors used by language

learners to enhance the acquisition, storage, retention, and use to new information.

Oxford, Lavine and Crookal (1989) cited in Hardan (2013: 1714) have the same

9

idea as Rigeney (1978: 20) about language learning strategies. They stated that

language learning strategies are use to enhance and to facilitate language

acquisition. They referred to language learning strategies as "actions, behaviors,

steps, or techniques such us seeking out the target language conversation partners,

or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language task used by

learners to enhance learning. As stated earlier about language learning strategies,

Rubin (1994: 25) suggested that language learning strategies are routines, plans

and operations used by the learnerto facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval

and use of information. According to them the objective in using language

learning strategies is to memorize language information, recall that information

and use it in a different situation. In other words, language learning strategies

refer to what students do to learn and to regulate their learning.

According to Oxford (1990: 56) learners are being encouraged to learn and

use a board range of language learning strategies that can be tapped throughout

the learning process. This approach is based on the belief that learning will be

facilitated by making this students aware of range of strategies from which they

can choose during language learning and use. Every learner have their strategies

in language learning. Some students learn words by breaking them down into their

components and some of them consciously use guessing when they read (Oxford,

1990: 43).

Language learning strategies has been categorized into several clarification

by the experts. One of the most comprehensive and complete classifications was

the classification by Oxford (1990: 10). She mentioned that strategies were

prominent for language learning because they are tools for active, self-directed

involvement, which was essential for developing communicative competence.

10

Oxford (1990: 11) categorized language learning strategies into direct and indirect

strategies. The strategies used directly in dealing with a new language are called

direct strategies. Oxfords direct strategies consist of three parts, memory

strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. Oxfords indirect

strategies include metacognitive strategies, affective (emotional, motivation-

related) strategies, and social strategies.

The categories of language learning strategies and the language learning

strategies is an essential role in language learning process (Alfian:2016). It

represents one of the most critical components in language learning. Language

learning strategies very important for language learning because they are tools for

active, self directed movement, which was essential for developing

communicative competence (Oxford, 1990 : 14). Furthermore, Gursoy (2010)

cited in Alfian (2016) who has stated that language learning strategies can also

create a productive, student-centred learning environment in which students are

encouraged to be autonomous or independent learners – learners who can take

control of their learning.

The researcher summarize the direct and indirect strategies by Oxford

(1990: 18) as follows:

a. Direct strategies

According to Oxford (1990: 17) the direct strategies are beneficial to the

students because they help store and recover information. These strategies help

learners to produce language even when there was gap in knowledge. They also

help to understand and use the new language.

1. Memory strategies

11

Oxford (1990: 17) states memory strategies are based on simple principles

like laying things out in order, making association, and reviewing. These

principles are employed when a learner faces challenge of vocabulary learning.

The words and phrases can be associated with visual images that can be stored

and retrieved for communication. Many learners make use of visual images, but

some find it easy to connect words and phrases with sound, motion or touch.

2. Cognitive strategies

Oxford (1990: 17) states cognitive strategies was the most popular strategies

with language learners. The target language was manipulated or transformed by

repeating, analyzing or summarizing. The four sets in this group are: Practicing,

Receiving and Sending Messages, Analyzing and Reasoning, and Creating

Structure for Input and Output.

3. Compensation Strategies

Oxford (1990: 17) states learners use compensation strategies for

comprehension of the target language when they have insufficient knowledge of

the target language. These strategies make up for the deficiency in grammar

andvocabulary. When learners do not know new words and expressions, they

guess the meaning. A learner brings own life experience to interpret data by

guessing.

b. Indirect strategies

Oxford (1990: 17) states indirect language learning strategies work together

with the direct strategies. They help learner regulate the learning process. These

12

strategies support and manage language learning without direct engagement and

therefore called indirect strategies (Oxford, 1990).

1. Metacognitive Strategies

Oxford (1990: 17) states metacognitive strategies was aspects associated with

planning, monitoring, and evaluating the language learning process (Fewell, 2010:

66). Metacognitive strategies go beyond the cognitive mechanism and gave learners

to coordinate their learning. This helps them to plan language learning in an efficient

way. When new vocabulary, rules, and writing system confuse the learner, these

strategies become vital for successful language learning. Song (2004) cited in Alfian

(2016: 151) found that metacognitive strategies were most frequently used by the

students when comparing to cognitive strategies.

2. Affective Strategies

Oxford (1990:17) states affective strategies are concerned with the learners

emotional requirements such as confidence and perseverance needed for learners

to involve themselves actively in language learning, for example, lowering

anxiety levels by laughing at their own mistakes (Vlckova, 2013: 154).The

affective factors like emotion, attitude, motivation, and values influence learning

in an important way. Three sets of strategies were included in this group:

Lowering Your Anxiety, Encouraging Yourself, and Taking Your Emotional

Temperature. Good language learners control their attitudes and emotions about

learning and understand that negative feelings retard learning. Teachers can help

generate positive feeling in class by giving students more responsibility,

increasing the amount of natural communication, and teaching affective strategies.

3. Social Strategies

13

Oxford (1990: 17) states language was a form of social behavior: it was

communication, and communication occurs between and among people (Oxford:

1990: 144) social strategies were very important in learning a language because

language was used in communication and communication occurs between people.

Three sets of strategies were included in this group: Asking Questions,

Cooperating with others, and empathy with others. Among the three, asking

questions was the most helpful and comes closest to understanding the meaning. It

also helps in conversation by generating response from the partner and shows

interst and involvement. Cooperation with other eliminates competition and in its

place brings group spirit. Studies show that cooperative learning results in higher

self-esteem, increased confidence, and rapil achievement.

2. Students Thinking Styles

Thinking was an important part of the learning process. According to

Nasrah (2012: 341) by understanding the diversity of thinking styles our students

possess, we are able to insure that students understand what we are teaching even

if they have very different styles from our own.

Zhang (2011: 157) states that thinking styles refer to students‟ preferred

ways of using the abilities that they have. Students‟ thinking styles could predict

students‟ course satisfaction and their learning involvement. Differ with Batoret

(2007) states thinking styles were, in principle, value-free, for the same thinking

style can serve on person beautifully in one situation, but may fail the same

person miserably in another situation. Understanding thinking styles can help

14

student to understand well why some activities fit them and others don't, and even

why some students‟ fit them and others don't.

Sternberg (1997) in mental self-governing theory defines 13 styles of

thinking classified in 5 dimensions that was:

a. Function (including the legislative, executive, and judicial styles).

1. Legislative Styles

According to Sternberg (1997:20) legislative people like to come up with

their own ways of doing things, and prefer to decide for themselves what they

have done and how they have done it. Legislative people like to create their

own rules and prefer problems that were not pre-structured and prefabricated.

Example Ben was a legislative stylist. Some of the preferred kinds of

activities of a legislative stylist are writing creative papers, designing

innovative projects, creating new business or educational systems, and

inventing new things. Some of the kinds of occupations that legislative prefer

are creative writer, scientist, artist, sculptor, investment banker, policy maker,

and architect.

2. Executive Styles

According to Sternberg (1997:21) executive people like to follow rules

and prefer problems that are pre-structured or prefabricated. They like to fill

in the gaps within existing structures rather than to create the structures

themselves. Some of the kinds of activities they are likely are solving given

mathematical problems, applying rules to problems, giving talks or lessons

based on other people's ideas, and enforcing rules. Some occupations that can

15

be a good fit to executivethinkers are certain types of lawyer, police officer

on patrol, buider of the other people’s deigns, soldier, and administrative

assistent.

3. Judical styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 21) judicial people like to evaluate rules

and procedures, and prefer problems in which one analyzes and evaluates

existing things and ideas. The judicial stylist likes activities such as writing

critiques, giving opinions, judging people about their work, and evaluating

programs. Some of their preferred kinds of occupations were judge, critic,

program evaluator, consultant, admissions officer, grant and contract monitor,

and systems analyst.

b. Forms (including the hierarchical, oligarchic, monarchic, and anarchic styles).

1. Hierarchical Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 22) the hierarchic person has a hierarchy

of goals and recognizes the need to set priorities, as all goals cannot always

be fulfilled, or at least fulfilled equally well. This person tends to be more

accepting of complexity and recognizes the need to view problems from a

number of angle to set priorities correctly.

2. Oligarchic Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 23) the oligarchic person was like the

hierarchic person in having a desire to do more than one thing in time. But

unlike hierarchic people, oligarchic people tend to be motivated by several,

often competing goals. Often, these individuals feel pressured in the face, the

16

competing demands on their time and other resources. They are not always

sure what to do first, or how much time to allot to each of the tasks they need

to complete. They can become as effective or even more effective than people

with other styles.

3. Monarchic Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 23) a monarchic person is someone who is

single-minded and driven. The individual tends not to let anything get in the

way of his or her solving a problem. Monarchic people can be counted on to

get a thing done, given that they have set their mind to it.

4. Anarchic Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 23) the anarchic person seems to be

motivated by a potpourri of needs and goals that can be difficult for him or

her, as well as for others, to sort out. Anarchic people take what seems like a

random approach to problems; they tend to reject systems, and especially

rigid ones,and to fight back at whatever system they see as confining them.

c. Levels (including the global and local styles).

1. Global Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 24) global individuals prefer to deal with

relatively large and abstract issues. They ignore or do not like details, and

prefer to see the forest rather than the trees. Like to deal with big picture,

generalities, and abstractions.

2. Local Styles

17

According to Sternberg (1997: 24) local individuals like concrete

problems requiring working with details. They tend to be oriented toward the

pragmatics of a situation, and were down-to-earth. The danger was that they

may lose the forest for the trees. However, some of the worst system failures,

such as in aviation and rocketry, have occurred when people have ignored

what seemed at the time to be small details. Thus, almost any team requires at

least some local individuals.

d. Scopes (including the internal and external styles)

1. Internal Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 25) internal individuals are concerned

with internal affairs - that was to say, these individuals turn inward. They

tend to be introverted, task oriented, aloof, and sometimes socially less aware.

They like to work alone. Essentially, their prefence was to apply their

intelligence to things or ideas in isolation from other people.

2. External Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 25) external individuals tend to be

extroverted, outgoing, and peopleoriented. Often, they are socially sensitive

and aware of what is going on with others. They like working with other

people wherever possible. Many of the questions that arise in education as to

"what was better?" stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the

interaction of styles with learning experience.

e. Leanings (including the liberal and conservative styles)

1. Liberal Styles

18

According to Sternberg (1997: 26) the liberal individual likes to go

beyond existing rules and procedures, to maximize change, and to seek

situations that are somewhat ambiguous. The individual is not necessarily

"politically" liberal. A political conservative could have a liberal style in

trying to implement, say, a Republican agenda in a new and all-encompassing

way. Thrillseekers tend to have a liberal style, as do people who, in general,

quickly become bored.

2. Conservative Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 26) the conservative individual likes to

adhere to existing rules and procedures, minimize change, avoid ambiguos

situations where possible, and stick with familiar situations in work and

professional life. This individual will be happiest in structure and relatively

predictable environment. When such structure does not exist, the individual

may seek to create it.

Moreover, students use different thinking styles on the basis of the

stylistic demands of a given situation. Biggs & Telfer (1987) have

demonstrated that knowledge about students‟ thinking styles is helpful for

educators and curriculum designers interested in designing effective and

workable teaching strategies that satisfy student needs. This was essential to

the aim of the teaching-learning process, which was for students to receive

meaningful knowledge that can be used in new learning situations and

retained longer in the mind.

19

Thinking styles can be affected by a variety like culture, gender, age,

parental styles, schools, different jobs and social and economic status.

Sternberg (1997: 16) believed that two aspects of culture are relevant here:

first is some societies are likely to be more rewarding of certain styles than

others. And the second was the respective natures of individualistic and

collectivistic cultures may lead to different thinking styles.The way of

students thinking styles between man and woman was different. According to

Sternberg (1997: 56) men used higher frequency of styles than women and

rated them self as more global, internal and less judicial. Parents also

influenced students thinking styles. Sternberg (1997: 65) stated that the way

the parents react to their children questions and what they encourage and

reward at home reflect in their thinking styles. Sternberg (1997: 12) stated

that thinking styles are related with creativity processes, problem solving and

decision making. Sternberg (1997: 17) it was expected that the best predictors

of students‟ thinking style would be those that best fit or were most

compatible with the way the class was conducted and organized; in other

words, students satisfaction with the course would depend upon the

consistency of the students‟ thinking styles.

C. Hypothesis of the Research

Prediction over the truth regarding to the correlation between two or more

variables is called as hypothesis (Arikunto: 2016: 45). In analyzing the data, the

researcher used correlational quantitative research. The hypothesis going to be

statement whether or not there were correlation among the two variables.

20

According to Arikunto (2016: 47) there are two kinds of hypothesis as

follows:

1. Null hypothesis (Ho)

Statement which shows a negative correlation (no correlation) among

variables is called Null hypothesis.

2. Alternative hypothesis (Ha)

Statement which shows a positive correlation (there are correlation) among

variables was called Alternative hypothesis.

Therefore, the writer aims to propose two hypotheses as follows:

1. Ho: there was no significant correlation between language learning

strategies and students thinking styles.

2. Ha: there was significant correlation between language learning strategies

and students thinking styles.

D. Conceptual Frame Work

Based on the some theories, present the researcher try to give theoretical:

Learning English

Language Learning

Strategies

Students’ Thinking

Styles

Indirect strategies

a. Metacognitive Strategies

b. Affective Stratgeis

c. Social Strategies

Thinking styles

a. Internal Styles

b. External styles

21

Figure 2.1 conseptual framework

Based on the conceptual framework above shown in learning english. The

learning english was a term referring to processes and actions that were

conciously develop by leaners to help them to learn or use a language more

effectively. In learning english there are two parts. The first part was language

learning strategies and the second part was students’ thinking styles. Language

learning strategies were included metacognitive strategies, affective strategies,

and social strategies. And students’ thinking styles include intrnal styles and

external styles.

22

CHAPTERIII

RESEARCH METHOD

A. Research Design

This researchwas descriptivequantitative which was used about the

correlation between two variable those were language learning strategies and

students thinking styles in order to find out the correlation of both.

B. Population and Simple

Students in this research was senior high school. The subject of this research

was twelve grade of SMAN 5 Selayar in 2019/2020

1. Population

The population of this research was XII grade in students of SMA Negeri 5

Selayar in Academic year 2019/2020.Which consisted of 3 classes they were XII

IPS1, XII IPS2, and XII IPA. The number of population were 50 students

2. Sample

Sample was part of population. The data obtained from population by using

ramdom sampling technique in three classes theree class. It was conducted at the

students of the twelve garde students of SMA Negeri 5 Selayar consits of 25

students.

C. Research Variable

There were two variables that used in conducting research, namely the

independent variable and the dependent variable. The independent variable in this

study was the used of the language learning strategies. Meanwhile, the dependent

variable in this study was to improve students’ thinking styles.

23

D. Research Instrument

The instrument which was used by the researcher was questionnaire. It

divided into two parts, the first one was the questionnaire of Language Learning

Strategy which was consisted of 3 main parts those were metacoqnitive, affective

and social which each part consisted of 5 items so the total items were 15 items.

The second one was the questionnaire of Thinking Styles which was divided into

2 main parts those are internal and external which each part consists of 10 items

so the total items are 20 items.

E. Procedure of Data Collection

In collected data, the researcher used some procedures as follows:

1. First, the researcher came to the class and explained the purpose of the

research.

2. The second, researcher explained about the questionnaire and how to answer

it.

3. Next, the questionnaires were distributed to the students.

4. The students gave 35-45 minutes.

5. After answering the questionnaire, the researcher collected it from the students

and says thanks to the students for their time to answer the questionnaire.

24

F. Technique of Data Analysis

The data obtained from the questionnaire through the following formula:

1. Formula of Mean Score

To calculate the mean score, the following formula was applied:

-X = ΣX

N

Where : X = mean score

: ΣX = the sum of all score

: N = the number of students

(Gay, 1981)

2. Formula calculate of the correlation

After getting data from the students in the questionnaire, the researcher

needed to analyze the data and correlated between questionnaire resulted. The

researcher was description analysis to describe the data statistically.

The technique on data on analysis used correlation technique from person

product moment, that is:

√

Where:

rxy : Coefficient of correlation between X variable and Y variable

ΣX : The sum of scores in X distribution

ΣY : The sum of scores in Y distribution

ΣX : The sum of multiplication of X and Y scores

X 2 : The sum of squared in X

Y 2 :The sum of squared in Y

N : The number of sample

(Sugiyono, 2010)

25

Table 3.1 Standard of Correlation product Moment

No. The Score of “r” Product Moment (rxy) Interpretation

1 0.000 - 0.199 Very low

2 0.20 – 0.399 Low

3 0.40 – 0.599 Medium

4 0.60 – 0.799 High

5 0.80 – 1.000 Very High

(sugiyono, 2011)

To find out whether the correlation between the two variable of this research was

significant or not, the r analysis was compared with the r table as follow.

If rxy> r table is positive correlation

rxy< r table negative correlation

rxy = r table is zero correlation

26

BAB IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

In this research was contained data finding from the test result, the

researcher conducted the research using questionnaire in SMA Negeri 5 Selayar at

twelve grade for getting questionnaire score. The researcher analyzed data to

know the correlation between language learning strategies and students thinking

styles.

A. Research Findings

The findings of this research deals with the language learning strategies used

by the students score obtained from questionnaire, the students thinking styles

score obtained thourgh test and analysis correlation which were presented

below.

1. Language Learning Strategies

Language Learning Strategies score as variable X in this study. To get the

score, the researcher conducted the research through questionnaire. Based on the

analyzed data, the present research found that all three language learning

strategies had been used by the students at different rate. The table below

describes the result of the language learning strategies questionnaire.

Table 4.1 Score of Language Learning Strategies :

No. Learning Strategies Mean score

1. metacognitive 2.232

27

2. Affective 2.116

3. Social 1.912

2. The Students Thiking Styles Score:

The students’ thinking styles score as Y variable in this study, to get the

score, the researcher conducted the research through questionnaire. . Based on the

analyzed data, the present research found that all three thinking styles had been

used by the students at different rate. The table below describes the result of the

students’ thinking styles questionnaire.

Table 4.2 Score of Thiking Styles

No. Thinking styles Mean score

1. Internal 4.612

2. External 4.536

Based on the result of the data analysis above, it can be concluded that, the

mean score of the total language learning strategies especially thiking styles was

2.232, where of the table above the average student gets the higest score of 60 to

the lowes, 20, so that the overall number was obtained, while thinking styles

was4.612from the total number of students, namely 25 people, where in this

indicator students have values ranging from 75 and above so that students rarely

have high score. It means hat have positive correlation between them.

Table 4.3 the result of students thinking styles was Learning Engish

28

Valid

Thinking Styles Result Frequency Percent

Extenal and Internal 4 16%

Thinking styles 21 84%

Total 25 100%

Based on the result of frequency and persent it can be seen that the

correlation between language learning strategies and students thinking styles, of

SMA negeri 5 Selayar there were only 4 students (16%) from 25 sample of

students who are unthinking styles by language learning strategies conducted in

class while on the other word there are 21 students (84%) are highly thinking

styles in language learning stratgeis in the class that was reviewed from the result

of data collection and the result of the data analysis. It means that language

learning strategies and students thinking styles in though the significant was high

scores. It means that have positive correlation between them.

Chart 4.1 Frequency of language learning strategies and students thinking

styles score

Frequency

40

30

20

10

0

Thinking styles Internal external

Based on the chart of frequency above, can be seen the correlation between

language learning stratagies and students’ thinking styles, of SMAN 5 Selayar

there were 4 only students (16%) from 25 sample of students who were

29

unthinking styles by language learning strategies conducted in class while on the

other word there are 21 students (84%) were thinking styles in language learning

strategies in the class that was reviewed from the resul of data collection and the

result of data analysis. It means that language learning strategies have correlation

between language learning strategies and studants’ thinking styles though the

significant was higt score it means that have positive correlation between them.

Chart 4.2 Frequency of language learning strategies and students thinking

styles score

Percentage

40

30

20

10

0

Thinking styles Internal external

Based on the chart of the percetage above, can be seen the correlation

between language learning stratgeies especially metacognitive strategis and

thinking styles of students especially intrinsic thinking styles in English learning,

of SMAN 5 Selayar there were 4 students (16%) from 25 sample of students who

were unthinking styles by language learning strategies conducted in class while

on the other word there were 21 students (84%) are thinking styles in language

learning strategies in the class that was reviewed from the result of data collection

30

and the result of data analysis. It means that language learning strategies have

correlation between language learning stratgies and students thinking styles in

though the significant was high scores it means that have positif correlation

between them.

3. Hypothesis Test

The result of statistical analysis at the level significant or alpha level (a)

5% showed that rxy was higher than rtable analysis 0,413 based on the calculation,

the coefficient correlation between language learning strategie to the students

achievement was 14,3. The significant value was 14,3 > 0,413. It meant that

alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted, while the null hypothesis (Ho) was

rejected.

The researcher concluded that there was significant correlation between

language learning strategies and students thinking styles. It meant that the students

have to pay attention in their learning strategies.

B. Discussion

The researcher stated in the previous chapter the aim of study was to

investigated whether there is significant correlation between Language Learning

Strategies and Students Thinking styles had been proved at English grade of

SMAN 5 Selayar.

This reserach was same with the some previous researchs. The first by

Ahmadi, Gorjoan, Pazhakh (2014) that there was positive correlation between

language learning stratgeis and students thinking styles (r = 0.793). this research

was also supported byMahmood, K. B. (2013) which found out that there was

31

significant relationship between language learning stratgies and students thinking

styles (r =0.176).

The research by Hossein and Shahrooz (2012) that there was correlation

between thinking styles and Language Learning Strategis (N= 100). There was

significant evidence to accepted the null hypothesis HO and conclude that there

was a positive associantion between thinking styles (M=5,26, SD=0.598) and

Language Learning Strategies (M=3.33, SD=0,755), (r=0.793 p

<0.01). this

research was also supported by Ajleaa Nurul (2015). She said there was a

correlation between the Language Learning Strategies and thinking styles. It was

found to be the highest (r=0,49, p<0.01).

This result of the data was supported by Hismanoglu (2000) who said that

the Language Learning Strategies has a significant correlation with students

thinking styles was classified as high level where the mean score was (r=76,04, p<

0,01). The studies of Park (2010) indicated that were was a positive correlation

between Language Learning Strategies and students thinking styles. Another

previous research, Juwita (2015) stated that Language Learning Strategies gave a

significant correlation on students thinking styles with (r= 0,952) Language

Learning Strategies were used by the students to help them improve the

effectiveness of students thinking styles.

On the other hand, calculation in this research showed the correlation

between languagae learning strategies and students’ thingking styles was hinger

than rcound(14,3 > 0,413). Based on the table interpretation, the correlation

coofficient rcound=14,3 was considered as high correlation bacause it included in

32

the fourth category (14,3- 0413). It means there was positive correlation between

two variable. In addition, the significant values was p=0,01 < 0,05 wich means

that the correlation was significant. And the coefficient determination was R

Square = 63,4 which means that the effect of Language Learning Strategies

toward students thinking styles was 63,4%.

Based on several statements above, it can be concluded that language

learning strategies and students thinking styles were very influential and related to

one another as in the result of data obtained after conducting research in one

school. Where the result show that thinking styles was very important for a

student in a learning strategies in the classroom, such as those presented above or

the result of data that has been obtained. Where the result show that the

correlation between language learning strategies and students thinking styles was

very high in the school.

34

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

Based on the finding of the data analysis, the researcher conclusion and

suggesion of this research, there was positif significant correlation between

language learning strategies and students thinking styles in English learning.

Arranging and planning from the result above the researcher got that rxy > r table;

14,3 > 0.413 that means there was positive correlation between language learning

strategies expecially metacognitive, affective, social strategies and students

thinking styles expecially internal and external styles in English learning at

Twelve Grade of SMAN 5 Selayar.

B. Suggestion

In this chapter, in respect to the correlation between language learning

strategies and students thnking styles. the researcher would like to porpose some

suggestion that hoprfully would usefull for to the English Learning at Twelve

Grade of SMAN 5 Selayar.

1. For English teacher at Twelve Grade of SMAN 5 Selayar.

a. The teacher should pay attention more about language learning strategies

and thinking styles bacause had significant role.

b. The teacher should explain about language learning stratgies learning and

thinking styles give some exercise to improve their own learning in

English learning

2. For students at Twelve Grade of SMAN 5 Selayar.

35

a. That was where as we know that thinking styles has a strong influence on

learning stratgies as well, students themselves must try to encourage

themselve to be able, confidence and certain to succeed. The point was

always thinking positively and missing the passimistic nature.

b. Thinking styles was very important for students in learning stratgy in the

classroom. Become language learning strategies and thinking styles can

encourage students and change their personality better than before.

3. For future research

The researcher hopes that the next researcher will take more attetion when

they analysis and evaluate the instruments carefully furthermore, they have to

consider and choose carefully the suitable instrument of research.

36

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmadi, (2014) The Effect Of The Thinnking Style On EFL Language Learning

Strategy And Reading Comprehension. Iran: IJLLALW.

Ajleaa, (2015). The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and

Motivation in Learning English as A Second Language. Retrived from

https://www.reseschqate.net/publication/318489292. September 7th

2019.

Alfian. (2016). The aplication of language learning strategy of high school

students in indonesia. Ijee (indonesia journal of english education).

3(2), 140-157

.

Alhaysony, M. (2017). Leanguage learning strategy use by saudia efl students:

the effect of duration of english language study and gender. University

of hail, vol7 no 1.

Arikunto, S. (2002) prosedure penelitian, suatu pendekatan praktik. Jakarta: PT

intan putra.

Arikunto, S. (2016) prosedure penelitian suatu pendekatan praktik. Jakarta:

Rinekacipta.

Batoret, F, D. (2007) the influence of students’ and teachers’ thinking style on

students course satisfaction andon their learning process. Universitas

faume vol.27, no.2.

Borg, W. R & Gall, M. D. 1983 educational research: An introduction . New

york: Longman.

Chamot, A. U. (2014) issues of language learning strategy research and teaching.

Journal of foreign language teaching. Vol.1, PP. 14-26 natioanl

university of singapure.

Chamot, A.U> 2004 Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and

Teaching, Journal of Foreign language teaching. Vol.1,No. 1.PP.14-26

National University of Singapore,

Cohen, A. D (1998) Strategies in Learning and using a second Language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cresswell, J.W (2012) Educational Research: Planing, conduction, and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Garamond: Tex Tech

https://www.reseschqate.net/publication/318489292.%20September%207th%202019

https://www.reseschqate.net/publication/318489292.%20September%207th%202019

37

Dweck, C. S. (2006) The new psycology of success united stated: random house

Felder, M. R. (1995). Learning and Teaching Styles in foreign and second

Languange education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00767.x.

Gay, L. R. (2006) Educational Research, Competencies for analysis and

application. Ohio: Merril Publishing Company

Ghani, M. (2003) language learning strategies: a general overview. Iraq: elsevier

Ltd

Hardan, A. A. (2013) language learning strategies: a general overview. Iraq:

elsevier Ltd.

Hismanoglu, M (200) language learning stratgies in foreign Language Learning

and teaching. The internet TESL Journal, Vol, No.8, Agustust 2000

Hossein, (2012). The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and

Students Thinking styles of Iranian EFL lerners. Islamic Azad

University, Urmia Iran.

Ismail, N. M. (2012) Using Learning Styles, Thinking Styles and Students’

Attitude to Predict English language Achievement at The Collelage

Level. Taif University Voll 77, 333-374.

Juwita, et al (2015). Correlation Between Students Language Learning Strategies

and Their Thinking Styles at High School. Lampung; UNILA Journal

of English Teching.

Mahmood, K. B. (2013) the relationship between leanguage learning strategies

and thinking style of irani EFLlearners international journal of

research studies in language. 3-19.

Nyikos, M. (1990). Sex-related differences in adult language learning

socialization and memory factor. Modern language journal, 74 (3),

273-287

Oxford, R. (1989) the role of styles and stratgeis in second language

laerning.ERIC Digest, ERIC Clearing House and Linguistic

washington DC.

Oxford, R. L. (1990) languaage learning strategies: what every teacher should

know. Boston: heinle&henle.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00767.x

38

Park., G. (2010). Investigation into Learning Strategies Used by Effectivi and Less

Effective EFL Learners in korea. South Korea: Soonchunhyang

University.

Razavi, A., & Shiri, A. (2005) coparative study on thinking styles of boys and

girls of high school and their academic achievement. Innovation in

education journal. 12(4), 35-45.

Richards and Rodgers (2001) Survey Research Method, 2nd

Edition. Belmont CA:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Saputra, E. W., and Subekti, N. B. (2017). A Study of The Language Learning

Strategies Used by English Education Departement Students.

Yogyakarta: Journal of English Language and Language Teaching

(Jellt).

Sternberg. R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Thinking styles inventory. Unpublished

Masterl thisis, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Sugiono. (2017) model penelitian quantitative, qualitative, R&B bandung:

alfabeta

Sugiono. (2017). Statistika untuk penelitian. bandung: alfabeta

Turki, J. (2012). Thinking styles “in light of sternberg’s Thoery” prevailing

among the students of Tafila Technical University and its relationship

with some variables. American Interlational Journal of Contenporary

research, 2(3), 140-152.

Wenden, A. and J.Rubin. (1987), Learner Strtegies and Language Learning. New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign

language learning in Singapore. Languange Learning, 50,203-243.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00117

.

Zare, Pezhman. & Noordin (2011). The Relationship Between Language Learning

Strategy Use and Reading Comprehension Achievement Among

Iranian Undergraduate EFL Learners.

Zhang. (2011) Thinking Style and Conceptions of Creativity Among University

Students. Vol.31, no. 3 University of Brussels.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00117

39

Appendix 1

SCORE OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATGEIES

Respondent Name Score

1 AAAA 25

2 BBBB 20

3 CCCC 25

4 DDDD 25

5 EEEE 23

6 FFFF 25

7 GGGG 25

8 HHHH 20

9 IIII 17

10 JJJJ 22

11 KKKK 19

12 LLLL 20

13 MMMM 23

14 NNNN 19

15 OOOO 25

16 PPPP 25

17 QQQQ 25

18 RRRR 22

19 SSSS 20

20 TTTT 24

21 UUUU 25

22 VVVV 20

23 WWWW 21

24 XXXX 18

25 YYYY 25

N = 25 Total = 558

METACOGNITIVE

40


1 AAAA 23

2 BBBB 20

3 CCCC 20

4 DDDD 20

5 EEEE 22

6 FFFF 22

7 GGGG 25

8 HHHH 24

9 IIII 20

10 JJJJ 24

11 KKKK 21

12 LLLL 20

13 MMMM 19

14 NNNN 25

15 OOOO 21

16 PPPP 21

17 QQQQ 19

18 RRRR 19

19 SSSS 25

20 TTTT 17

21 UUUU 20

22 VVVV 19

23 WWWW 24

24 XXXX 19

25 YYYY 20

N = 25 Total = 529

AFFECTIVE

41


1 AAAA 24

2 BBBB 21

3 CCCC 20

4 DDDD 21

5 EEEE 19

6 FFFF 22

7 GGGG 18

8 HHHH 22

9 IIII 21

10 JJJJ 18

11 KKKK 18

12 LLLL 18

13 MMMM 23

14 NNNN 19

15 OOOO 19

16 PPPP 15

17 QQQQ 25

18 RRRR 19

19 SSSS 21

20 TTTT 22

21 UUUU 21

22 VVVV 19

23 WWWW 22

24 XXXX 20

25 YYYY 20

N = 25 Total = 478

Sample Language Learning Strategies

25

Metacognitive

Means score

2.232

Affective

Means score

2.116

Social

Means score

1.912

SOCIAL

42

THE SCORE STUDENTS THINKING STYLES


1 AAAA 50

2 BBBB 50

3 CCCC 35

4 DDDD 49

5 EEEE 48

6 FFFF 44

7 GGGG 50

8 HHHH 45

9 IIII 44

10 JJJJ 44

11 KKKK 28

12 LLLL 50

13 MMMM 47

14 NNNN 50

15 OOOO 48

16 PPPP 44

17 QQQQ 50

18 RRRR 50

19 SSSS 41

20 TTTT 50

21 UUUU 50

22 VVVV 46

23 WWWW 44

24 XXXX 48

25 YYYY 48

N = 25 Total = 1.153

INSTRINSIC

43


1 AAAA 45

2 BBBB 39

3 CCCC 43

4 DDDD 50

5 EEEE 43

6 FFFF 48

7 GGGG 47

8 HHHH 50

9 IIII 48

10 JJJJ 48

11 KKKK 45

12 LLLL 45

13 MMMM 50

14 NNNN 40

15 OOOO 50

16 PPPP 44

17 QQQQ 48

18 RRRR 43

19 SSSS 43

20 TTTT 39

21 UUUU 45

22 VVVV 45

23 WWWW 44

24 XXXX 43

25 YYYY 49

N = 25 Total = 1.134

Sample Students Thinking Styles

25

Instrinsic

Means score

4.612

Extrinsic

Means score

4.536

EXTRINSIC

44

The Correlation Score Of X and Y Variable

Sample X Y XY X2

Y 2

1 72 95 6840 5184 9025

2 61 89 5429 3721 7921

3 65 78 5070 4225 6084

4 66 99 6534 4358 9801

5 64 91 5824 4096 8281

6 65 92 5980 4225 8462

7 68 91 6188 4624 8281

8 64 100 6400 4096 10000

9 58 93 5394 3364 8649

10 64 92 5888 4096 8462

11 58 88 5104 3364 7744

12 58 73 4234 3364 5329

13 61 100 6100 3721 10000

14 63 87 5481 3969 7569

15 61 97 5917 5429 9409

16 71 94 6674 5041 8836

17 63 96 6048 3969 9216

18 62 87 5394 3844 7569

19 67 93 6231 4489 8649

20 62 89 5518 3844 7921

21 64 86 5504 4096 7396

22 61 95 5795 3721 9025

23 65 94 6110 4225 8836

24 57 81 4617 3249 6561

25 65 97 6305 4225 9409

Total ΣX = 1.585 ΣY = 2.271 ΣXY

=102539

ΣX2 =

144579

ΣY2

=74161039

45

Σ Σ Σ

√ Σ Σ Σ

√

√

√

√

46

Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 score

AAAA 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 72

BBBB 5 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 5 3 61

CCCC 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 3 5 4 4 1 5 5 5 65

DDDD 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 66

EEEE 4 4 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 64

FFFF 4 4 5 5 4 3 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 65

GGGG 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 68

HHHH 5 4 4 3 4 4 5 4 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 64

IIII 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 5 3 2 3 4 4 3 58

JJJJ 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 5 4 3 5 5 3 64

KKKK 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 58

LLLL 5 4 5 3 2 4 5 5 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 58

MMMM 5 5 3 4 3 5 3 3 5 3 5 5 4 3 5 61

NNNN 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 3 63

OOOO 4 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 4 5 5 3 4 5 4 61

PPPP 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 71

QQQQ 5 4 5 5 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 1 3 4 5 63

RRRR 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 5 5 5 3 3 5 62

SSSS 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 67

TTTT 5 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 62

UUUU 5 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 64

APPENDIX 3 THE SCORE LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

47

VVVV 5 4 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 4 5 5 3 5 61

WWWW 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 4 4 5 1 5 5 5 65

XXXX 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 57

YYYY 5 5 4 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 4 5 65

Jumlah 1.585

48

Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Score

AAAA 5 5 5 5 5 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 95

BBBB 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 89

CCCC 3 4 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 4 78

DDDD 3 5 5 4 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 99

EEEE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 4 5 4 5 5 4 3 91

FFFF 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 92

GGGG 3 4 5 5 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 91

HHHH 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100

IIII 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 3 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 5 93

JJJJ 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 92

KKKK 5 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 5 4 3 88

LLLL 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 3 4 4 3 3 5 5 4 4 4 2 3 3 73

MMMM 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 100

NNNN 5 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 3 4 5 3 87

OOOO 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 97

APPENDIX 4 THE SCORE THE STUDENTS THINKING STYLES

49

PPPP 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 94

QQQQ 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 96

RRRR 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 3 87

SSSS 4 3 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 89

TTTT 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 4 3 86

UUUU 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 95

VVVV 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 94

XXXX 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 81

YYYY 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 97

Jumlah 2.271

50

Background questioner appendix A

1. Name :

2. Class :

3. Gender :

4. Age :

Strategy Inventory for language learning (LLS)

How to fill: give a check list from one of the answers, Strongly Agree (5),

Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2) and Strongly Disagree (1)

List of Metacognitive Strategies Questions:

1. I pay attention when someone speake English

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree

e. Strongly Disagree

2. I think about my progress in learning English

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


3. I have a clear goal of being able to improve my English skills

51

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


4. I am looking for opportunities to be able to use English

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


5. I am looking for a friend or partner that I can teach to speak English

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


List of Affective Strategies questions:

1. I try to relax when I'm afraid of using English

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


52

2. I am aware of being nervous or tense while studying or using English

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


3. I encourage myself to speak English even when I'm afraid of making mistakes

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


4. I write about myself in an English learning book

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


5. I give a present for myself when I can use English well

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


53

List of Social Strategies Questions:

1. I practice English with other friends or students

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


2. when I don't understand a word or word in English, I ask him to slow down or

repeat his words

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


3. I try to learn about the culture of native English speakers

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


4. I ask questions in English

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree

54


5. I ask native speakers of English to correct me when I speak

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


Background questionnaire appendix B

1. Name :

2. Class :

3. Gender :

4. Age :

Thinking styles qeustionnaire

How to fill: give a check list from one of the answers, Strongly Agree (5), Agree

(4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2) and Strongly Disagree (1)

List of Internal Styles Questions:

1. I prefer to deal with certain problems myself rather than by asking my friends

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


2. When talking or writing about the main idea, I stick to one main idea

a. Strongly Agree

55

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


3. I like to concentrate on one task at a time

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


4. I like the problem where I need to pay attention to the details

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


5. I like projects that have a clear plan and purpose structure

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


6. I like routines where I can follow the set routines

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

56

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


7. I like to examine and assess points of ideas that are different or conflicting

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


8. I like to do assignments or solve my own problems

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


9. I am careful to use the right method to solve the problem

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


10. I tend not to pay attention to every problem in the main idea

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

57

d. Disagree


List of External Styles:

1. In the learning process I and friends are always ready

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


2. I like situations where I interact with other people

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


3. I like working on assignments with my friends

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


4. I do work and deal with problems with my friends

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

58

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


5. I like to check assignments and ask my friends for advice to determine the

correct answer

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


6. I solve the problem using the strategies or ideas of my friends

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


7. me and my friends are always motivated in learning

a a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


8. in my class and friends always ask questions about the material being taught

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

59

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


9. me and my friends always give answers about the material being taught

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


10. I and ordinary friends don't understand the material taught

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Neutral

d. Disagree


60

CURRICULUM VITAE

sumiati was born in Pulau Longos July 07 th

, 1995.

She is the last child from four siblings. His father

name is Hamarung her mother name is Ice. and she is

Muslim.

In 2009, she was graduated from SDN Pulau

Longos and continued her study at SMPN 5 Satap Pulau Longos and graduated in

2012.

In the same year, She was continued her study at MAN Labuan Bajo and

finished in 2015. After finished in Senior high school she was procesded her study

in Muhammadiyah University of Makassar in 2015. She is accepted in English

Education Department of Teacher Training Education Faculty

At the end of her study, she could finish her thesis with the title “The Correlation

Between Language Learning Strategies and Studatns Thinking Styles At Twelve

Grade Of SMA Negeri 5 Selayar.

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING …

Documents

Transcript of THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING …