Strategies of Learning Speaking Skill by Senior High School EFL Learners in Indonesia
(Article Published in Asian EFL Journal, Issue 80 November 2014)
Junaidi Mistar
English Education Department, Graduate Program, Islamic University of Malang, Indonesia
Email: junaidimistar@hotmail.com
Alfan Zuhairi
English Education Department, Graduate Program, Islamic University of Malang, Indonesia
Email: alfan_zuhairi@yahoo.com
Atik Umamah
English Education Department, Undergraduate Program, Islamic University of Malang, Indonesia
Email: atik.umamah@yahoo.com
Abstract
Incorporating theories of language learning strategies and theories of speaking strategies, the present study posed three research objectives: (1) identifying the categories of strategies of learning speaking skill employed by EFL learners of Indonesian senior high schools, (2) measuring the intensity of use of each strategy category, and (3) comparing the use of the identified strategies by successful and less successful students. The subjects were 743 second year students, selected from eleven senior high schools in East Java, Indonesia. They were asked to complete a seventy item questionnaire assessing their strategies of learning English speaking skill and a ten item self-assessment measuring their speaking competence. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed eleven categories of strategies, including cognitive interaction maintenance, self-improvement, self-evaluation, fluency-oriented, metacognitive planning, time gaining, resources-based, compensation, interpersonal, affective, and memory strategies, which all together accounted for 54.50% of variance of English speaking skill learning strategies. Further analyses revealed that learners employed the overall learning strategies of speaking at the moderate level (M=3.17), with resources-based strategies being the most intensively used (M=3.46) and self-improvement strategies (M= 2.83) being the least frequently employed. Finally, the present study found that successful learners reported using the eleven categories of strategies significantly more frequently than less successful learners did. The results of this study imply the need of explicit strategies-based instruction for developing students’ speaking skill, particularly for the less successful students.
Key Words: learning strategies, speaking strategies, EFL learners
Introduction
In the last few decades, there has been a considerable body of studies highlighting the potential role of learning strategies, most of which confirmed that the use of learning strategies greatly brings positive effects on the students’ mastery of English (Cohen, 2000; Mistar, 2011; Oxford, 1990; Nunan, 1992). Thus, Brown (2007) points out that success in second or foreign language learning “will be due to a large extent to a learner’s own personal ‘investment’ of time, effort, and attention to the second language in the form of an individualized battery of strategies for comprehending and producing the language” (p. 69). In this regard, Oxford (1990) develops a questionnaire called Startegy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), which has been used in a large number of studies around the world. In general, she classifies learning strategies into memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies.
In the area of communication strategies, Dewi (2007) investigated the strategies deployed by Indonesian senior high school students in overcoming speaking problems. The study revealed that high achievers prefer to use strategies of approximation, getting help, and switching to the mother tongue. Meanwhile, moderate achievers were reported to employ approximation and use synonym. Interestingly, no strategy was used by low achievers. Asuncion (2010), moreover, reported that among college students in Philippines switching to mother tongue was proven to be the most frequently used strategy and that there was a negative correlation between the use of compensatory strategies, mostly in the forms of switching to mother tongue and avoiding topic communication, and grade in English. Next, Nakatani (2006) revealed eight categories of strategies for overcoming problems in speaking activity and seven strategy categories for dealing with listening problems. A more complex and comprehensive research on speaking strategies was done by Khan (2010), who used picture story, art description, and information gap tasks to determine the strategies profile of high and low proficiency EFL learners in Spain. The study found that the use of spoken production strategies can be predicted more from task characteristics than from the proficiency of the learners and that the use of oral communication strategies in the EFL classroom is low. The last study to review is by López (2011), who examined the speaking strategies used by English students in Mexico. The result indicated that to compensate problems in speaking English, the students frequently ask for repetition, use paraphrase or synonyms, and ask for clarification.
An interesting fact comes with this review is that the studies available so far has used either theories of learning strategies or theories of communication startegies as the theoretical bases. The present study was then attempted to incorporate the two modes of theories and research findings to reveal the learning strategies to improve speaking skill by EFL learners. It then posed three questions: 1) what categories of strategies do the EFL learners of Indonesian senior high schools employ in learning speaking skill?, 2) how do they apply the reported startegies?, and 3) do the successful learners employ the reported strategies differently from the less successful learners?
Method
Subjects of the Study
The subjects of the study were 743 second year students of eleven public senior high schools in East Java, Indonesia and they learned English as a compulsory school subject. However, in the analysis of the comparison in the learning strategies by successful and less successful learners (research problem 3), only 348 subjects were included. When the data collection was carried out, they had been learning English formally for nearly five years of four hours a week. The formal target of the teaching of English they encounter is to train them to be able to use English as a means of communication.
Instruments
To elicit the required data, two sets of instruments were administered. The first one, a 70 item Likert-type questionnaire of strategies of learning speaking skills of English. The items of the questionnaire were compiled from questionnaires assessing language learning strategies as well as questionnaires assessing oral communication strategies. The Cronbach‘s Alpha method showed a reliability index .928, suggesting that the data were highly reliable. The second one was a 10 item self-assessment of speaking skill, in which the subjects had to respond by circling 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 indicating how well they were able to perform a speaking act. Self-assessment data have been found to have high validity and reliability (Bachman & Palmer, 1989).
Data Analysis
Using SPSS 20, a factor analysis using Principle Component Analysis (PCA) was first carried out and the component matrix was rotated to categorize the strategies of learning speaking. The categories were then labelled on the basis of the strategy items clustered in each category. Next, to examine the strategy preference and the intensity of use, an analysis of mean score was performed and interpreted based on Oxford’s (1990) criteria. Finally, independent samples t-tests were performed to compare the use of strategies by successful and less successful learners. In this case, students scoring 36 or more in the self-assessment were grouped as successful learners (n=156), while those scoring 25 or less were considered less successful (n=192), leaving out those scoring between 26 and 35 (n=395), who are in the middle position (somewhat successful and somewhat less successful).
Results and Discussion
Results
Problem 1: What categories of strategies do the EFL learners of Indonesian senior high schools employ in learning speaking skill?
The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) uncovered eleven categories of strategies of learning speaking with initial eigenvalue higher than 1.0 explaining a cumulative variance of 54.50% (See Table 1). In general the resulting factors may be classified into three broad groups, those explaining much more than 3%, around 3%, and less than 3%. Within the first group are factors 1, 2, and 3 that altogether accounted for 28.74% of variance. Factor 1 contains strategies that involve both the speaker and the interlocutor to maintain the conversation flow and they are cognitive in nature. It is then labeled as cognitive interaction maintenance strategies. Factor 2 contains strategies that are mainly deployed to improve speaking proficiency; thus, it is named self-improvement strategies. And, factor 3 is named self-evaluation strategies as they are mostly evaluative in nature such as learning from the previous mistakes, evaluating utterances after speaking, and correcting own mistakes.
Table 1 Reported Strategy Categories and Their Variance
|
No. |
Strategy Category (Factor) |
Variance Explained (%) |
Cumulative Variance (%) |
| 1. | Cognitive Interaction Maintenance Strategies |
13.79 |
13.79 |
| 2. | Self-Improvement Strategies |
9.28 |
23.07 |
| 3. | Self-Evaluation Strategies |
5.67 |
28.74 |
| 4. | Fluency-Oriented Strategies |
3.87 |
32.61 |
| 5. | Metacognitive Planning Strategies |
3.72 |
36.33 |
| 6. | Time Gaining Strategies |
3.41 |
39.74 |
| 7. | Resources-Based Strategies |
3.31 |
43.05 |
| 8. | Compensation Strategies |
3.16 |
46.21 |
| 9. | Interpersonal Strategies |
3.07 |
49.28 |
| 10. | Affective Strategies |
2.81 |
52.09 |
| 11. | Memory Strategies |
2.41 |
54.50 |
Factors 4 to 9 belong to the second group explaining 20.54% of the strategies variance. Factor 4 obtains high loadings from such strategies as practicing sounds in isolation and in context and speaking loudly; thus this category is named fluency-oriented strategies. Meanwhile, such strategies as trying to be a better learner and finding ways to practice English are strategies that contribute high loadings to factor 5, which is labelled metacognitive planning strategies. Next, factor 6, named time gaining strategies, obatains high loading from strategies to gain time during conversation such as repeating the last word or phrase, using fillers, using known words or phrases, and mumbling. Moreover, factor 7, labelled resources-based strategies, contains such strategy items as watching English movies and TV broadcast, listening to English songs, learning from online games, and using computer. Factor 8 is broadly designated as compensation strategies as this factor comprises such strategies as using dictionary or idiom books to prepare for oral activities in class and asking classmate or teacher for unknown words. The last factor within this category is factor 9, named interpersonal strategies, containing strategies of asking interlocutor to repeat or explain unknown expression in different words and telling the speaking partner when not understanding what he or she says.
The third group consists of factors 10 and 11. Factor 10 obtains high loadings from strategies of trying not to worry about mistake, not thinking too much before speaking, and keeping calm when not understanding every single detail said by the interlocutor. Hence, this category is referred to as affective strategies. Finally, factor 11 is labeled as memory strategies. This factor contains strategies of using rhymes to remember new words, putting the new words into rules, and using circumlocution.
Problem 2: How do they apply the reported startegies?
Table 2 shows that the overall use of strategies is at the moderate level (M=3.17). In terms of the use of each strategy category, only one – resources-based strategies – was reported to be used at the high level of intensity (M=3.46). This shows the high use of modern technology-based learning facilities to improve the learners’ speaking proficiency. The other ten strategies, moreover, were used at the moderate level of intensity. In this case, memory strategies and self-improvement strategies were used at the lowest intensity (M=2.83).
Table 2 Intensity of Use of Strategies of Learning Speaking Skill
|
Strategy Category |
Mean |
Frequency of Use |
Rank of Use |
| Resources-Based Strategies |
3.46 |
High |
1 |
| Self-Evaluation Strategies |
3.42 |
Moderate |
2 |
| Compensation Strategies |
3.34 |
Moderate |
3 |
| Interpersonal Strategies |
3.34 |
Moderate |
4 |
| Cognitive Interaction Maintenance Strategies |
3.32 |
Moderate |
5 |
| Time Gaining Strategies |
3.27 |
Moderate |
6 |
| Metacognitive Planning Strategies |
3.15 |
Moderate |
7 |
| Affective Strategies |
2.94 |
Moderate |
8 |
| Fluency-Oriented Strategies |
2.93 |
Moderate |
9 |
| Memory Strategies |
2.85 |
Moderate |
10 |
| Self-Improvement Strategies |
2.83 |
Moderate |
11 |
| Overall strategies |
3.17 |
Moderate |
Problem 3: Do the successful learners employ the reported strategies differently from the less successful learners?
Table 3 shows that the differences in the use of strategies by the successful learners and less successful learners range from .23 (the lowest difference) for self-improvement strategies to .52 (the highest difference) for interpersonal strategies. The independent t-test analyses indicated that the use of those categories of strategies of learning speaking was significantly different with the successfull learners reporting higher intensity of use than the less successful learners did. It implies that the successful learners are better at employing various strategies to learn speaking skill than the less successful learners are.
Table 3 The Difference in the Use of Strategies of Learning Speaking Skill by Successful Learners (N=156) and Less Successful Learners (N=192)
|
Strategy Categories |
Groups |
Mean |
Mean Difference |
t-value*) |
| Cognitive Interaction Maintenance Strategies | Successful |
3.56 |
.45 |
6.890(p<.000) |
| Less Successful |
3.11 |
|||
| Self-Improvement Strategies | Successful |
3.02 |
.43 |
6.227(p<.000) |
| Less Successful |
2.59 |
|||
| Self-Evaluation Strategies | Successful |
3.61 |
.31 |
4.191(p<.000) |
| Less Successful |
2.30 |
|||
| Fluency-Oriented Strategies | Successful |
3.16 |
.52 |
5.957(p<.000) |
| Less Successful |
2.64 |
|||
| Metacognitive Planning Strategies | Successful |
3.36 |
.42 |
5.418(p<.000) |
| Less Successful |
2.94 |
|||
| Time Gaining Strategies | Successful |
3.40 |
.29 |
3.724(p<.000) |
| Less Successful |
3.11 |
|||
| Resources-Based Strategies | Successful |
3.73 |
.44 |
5.455(p<.000) |
| Less Successful |
3.29 |
|||
| Compensation Strategies | Successful |
3.54 |
.43 |
5.204(p<.000) |
| Less Successful |
3.11 |
|||
| Interpersonal Strategies | Successful |
3.53 |
.29 |
3.462(p<.001) |
| Less Successful |
3.24 |
|||
| Affective Strategies | Successful |
3.12 |
.39 |
4.859(p<.000) |
| Less Successful |
2.73 |
|||
| Memory Strategies | Successful |
2.94 |
.23 |
2.932 (p<.004) |
| Less Successful |
2.71 |
*) two-tailed test
Discussion
The present study shows that the highest percentage of variance was explained by cognitive interaction-maintenance strategies, implying that learners tend to deploy strategies that involve not only the learners themselves but also the interlocutors. This also indicates that making a two-way interaction with an interlocutor to maintain the conversation is crucial in oral communication. Brown (2007) asserts that to communicate smoothly in English, learners basically need to have speaking skill to convey messages and listening skill to receive the messages. This current research also revealed that Indonesian learners deploy the strategies at moderate level meaning that they sometimes use those strategies with resources-based strategies being the most used strategies. This shows that sophisticated technology strongly influences students’ learning of English speaking.
Surprisingly, self-improvement strategies were applied at the lowest frequency implying that the learners do not use English in communication very much. This seems to relate with the context of their learning of English as a foreign language so that very little opportunities for the use of English as a means of communication is available. As a matter of fact, the best way to speak English fluently is through practicing it in real life (Lightbown & Spada, 1999).
Despite the low use of self-improvement strategies suggesting that the learners rarely use English as a means of communication, once they have a chance to use it, they deploy their cognitive and metacognitive capacities to evaluate their English. Self-correction is then prefered when they notice mistakes in using English. Moreover, some strategies are acted out to compensate any problems in communicating. As such, self-evaluation strategies and compensation strategies are used at the intensity of use ranked two and three respectively. Rubin and Thompson (1982) propose some criteria of good language learners; one of them is that good language learners evaluate their own progress in learning.
The finding that some strategy categories are used with mean scores less than 3.00 implies the necessity of learning strategy trainings. Thus, the concept of strategies-based instruction (Brown, 2007) needs to be implemented to allow the students to maximize the use of resources-based strategies combined with self-improvement strategies and other strategies to successfully accomplish speaking tasks.
Finally, in terms of the comparison of the use of strategies by successful and less successful learners in their learning of speaking skill, the present study reveals that the two groups of learners reported using all of the eleven strategy categories at significantly different levels of intensity with the successfull learners reporting higher intensity of use. This finding is consistent with findings of previous research in the area of foreign language learning strategies. Khan (2010), for example, reported that learners with high English proficiency tended to use English with more accuracy and structural complexity, as well as faster speech rate than learners with low English proficiency do. Moreover, the low proficiency learners self-repaired fewer errors than the high profieicncy learners did in one of the speaking tasks called information gap.
Conclusion
This study revealed eleven speaking strategy categories with the cumulative variance of 54.50%, meaning that more than a half of speaking strategies variance were assessed. The eleven speaking strategy categories are cognitive interaction maintenance, self-improvement, self-evaluation, fluency-oriented, metacognitive planning, time gaining, resources-based, compensation, interpersonal, affective, and memory strategies. Another crucial finding is that resources-based strategies were found to be the most intensively deployed strategies, while self-improvement strategies were the strategies applied at the lowest frequency. Finally, the study also reveals that the successful learners tend to use the strategies more intensively than the less successful leaners do in all of the eleven types of strategies.
These findings bring about a number of implications. For teaching purposes, for example, the lowest use of self-improvement strategies suggests that ample opportunities for the students to use English in and outside the classroom be provided. More importantly, further studies should be carried out particularly among the less successful learners to assess the effectiveness of learning strategies trainings to improve their English speaking skill.
References
Asuncion, Z. S. (2010). Filipino college freshman students’ oral compensatory strategies. Philippine ESL Journal, 5, 2-21.
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1989). The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6(1): 14-29.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Cohen, A. (2000). Strategies-based instruction for learners of a second language. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 10-18.
Dewi, E.K. (2007). Students’ strategies in overcoming speaking problems at SMA Unggulan Haf-sa Zainul Hasan-BPPT Genggong. Unpublished thesis, Islamic University of Malang, Indonesia.
Khan, S. (2010). Strategies and spoken production on three oral communication task: a study of high and low proficiency EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
López, M. M. (2011). Speaking strategies used by BA ELT students in public universities in Mexico. MEXTESOL Journal, 35(1), 1-22.
Mistar, J. (2011). Learning strategies by Indonesian senior high school EFL learners. Korea TESOL Journal, 10(1), 52-74.
Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an oral communication strategy inventory. The Modern Language Journal. 90, 151-168.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research method in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Rubin, J., & Thomson, I. (1982). How to be a more successful language learner. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Inc.
