See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342143526

Students’ Strategies in Learning Speaking: Experience of Two Indonesian

Schools

Article in Vision Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning · May 2020
DOI: 10.21580/vjv9i14791

CITATIONS READS

28 179

1 author:

Syafryadin Syafryadin
Universitas Bengkulu
80 PUBLICATIONS 461 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Syafryadin Syafryadin on 14 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VISION: JOURNAL FOR LANGUAGE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING, 2020
VOL.9, NO.1, 33-46
http://dx.doi.org/10.21580/vjv9i14791

Students’ Strategies in Learning Speaking: Experience of

Two Indonesian Schools
Syafryadin
Bengkulu University
syafryadin@unib.ac.id

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The present study was an effort to investigate strategies Received 28 April 2020
mostly used in learning speaking, which covered direct strategies Accepted 8 June 2020
and indirect strategies. To this end, 60 students from two different
high schools in a city in Indonesia, in which 30 students for each KEYWORDS
school participated this study. In collecting the data, this study used Direct strategies; indirect
close-ended questionnaires with Strategy Inventory Language strategies; speaking; strategy
Learner (SILL) consisting of 39 items, which were analyzed by inventory language learner
using a scoring system. The results of the study showed that students
of both schools generally used the same and different learning
strategies. The same learning strategies used by the students of both
schools were organizing and evaluating learning, referring to
metacognitive or indirect strategies. Meanwhile, the different
learning strategies used by the students of both schools occurred on
five strategies at a medium level. From the six types of learning
strategies, as indicated in this study, the most popular learning
strategies which were used by students of both schools were
organizing and evaluating learning.

Introduction

Learning strategies are procedures undertaken by the learners in order to make their
language learning improved. The strategies enable learners to enhance learning aspects
such as skills, confidence, even motivation (Shi, 2017). In this sense, O’Malley &
Chamot (1990) suggested focusing on selecting aspects of new information, analyzing,
and monitoring information during the encoding process and evaluating the learning,
so learning strategies are crucial to help students to alleviate their anxiety.
A Learning Strategy was an approach in learning and using information.
Students used Learning Strategies to help them understand information and solve
problems (Bruen, 2001). Students who did not know or use right learning strategies
may learn passively and maybe fail in school. Learning Strategy instruction focused
on making students more active since they knew how to learn and how to use what
they have learned to be successful. Some strategies should be made to enhance the
student’s success, including in high school context. In high school, the strategies of
=\
 Syafryadin | 34

learning English should be supported by appropriate and proper learning strategies, the
students’ readiness, and suitable teaching equipment.
In fact, teaching is not always supported by qualified teachers, students are not
ready to learn the materials, and schools have no complete equipment or appropriate
with the materials. However, they can get a successful result, mainly speaking as one
of the primary skills which should be mastered by language learners (Richards, 2008).
It can happen if the language learners use proper strategies or learning techniques and
the knowledge of classroom management that support them, including in learning to
speak. Mistar & Umamah (2014) have provided evidence of how learning strategies
contribute significantly to speaking.
Speaking practice is probably the most reliable route to authentic communication
in developing the learner’s proficiency. In the Indonesian context, the speaking ability
of the students at the High School level requires enormous effort to develop it since
most of them do not know how to express their feeling and ideas in speaking,
conversation, and discussion. Speaking is considered as the hardest skill in learning
English and needs various strategies that should be integrated with speaking class
(Mistar, Zuhairi, & Umamah, 2014). The differences in learning speaking strategies
show that there are many different strategies that students use to be active speakers.
This is closely related that Learning Strategies are the mental process, which learners
employ to learn and use the target language (Nunan, 1991).
Studies investigating learning strategies have been conducted by Amir (2018),
Shi (2017), and Alfian (2016), whose studies aimed to know the language learning
strategies used by the students, but they did not mention specific skills used for
language learning strategies. In addition, Wael, Asnur, & Ibrahim (2018) conducted
the research in a school that aimed to explore students’ learning strategies in speaking
in which memory strategies have been employed more than the other strategies
(metacognitive, social and cognitive strategy) in speaking. In other skills, Yulianti
(2018) conducted research that aimed to identify the learning strategies of the students
in learning writing. However, since most of the studies investigate only one school as
the setting, although they study different skills, it is crucial to find out whether any
differences regarding the learning strategies in different schools and the most
frequently typical strategies employed in different high schools.
In order to fill the void mentioned above, the current study focuses on finding
out the strategies and differences of strategies employed by students in learning
speaking at two different schools, which are at the same level. Besides, it also attempts
to reveal whether any significant difference of strategies used in learning speaking by
students at those schools.
35 | VISION: JOURNAL FOR LANGUAGE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

Literature Review

English learning strategies based on Oxford's (1990) classified system which is used
for language skills namely reading, speaking, writing, and listening. The strategies are
divided into two main strategies, namely, direct and indirect strategies. The direct
strategies are language learning strategies that directly involve the target language. All
direct strategies require mental processing of the language, such as memory strategies,
cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. Memory strategies refer to strategies
that are used by students to help them remember new language. Oxford (1990) stated
that this strategy could be facilitated for learners in entering information into long-
term or short-term memory and retrieving information when needed for some learning
activities. Memory strategies involve creating mental linkages, applying images and
sounds, reviewing well, and employing action. Then, cognitive strategies are strategies
which help the learners think about and understand the new language and become the
most popular strategies with language learner. This strategy consists of several sets,
such as practicing, receiving and sending messages, analyzing and reasoning, and
creating for input and output. Compensation strategies are a strategy that helps the
learners for either comprehension or producing to overcome knowledge in the target
language. The compensation strategy is useful to make up for an inadequate repertoire
of grammar and especially vocabulary. There are two other strategies that are involved
in this strategy, namely guessing intelligently in listening and reading and overcoming
limitations in speaking and reading.
Indirect strategy means a language learning strategy that supports and manages
language learning without (in many instances) directly involving the target language
(R. Oxford, 1990). Indirect strategies are classified into three categories, namely
metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies: metacognitive
means beyond, besides, or the cognitive. Metacognitive strategies are actions that go
beyond purely cognitive devices, which provide away for the learners to coordinate
their learning process. Metacognitive strategies include three strategy sets, namely
centering learning, arranging and planning learning, and evaluating learning. Affective
strategies refer to emotions, attitudes, motivations, and values, according to Brown
(Oxford, 1990: 140), that the affective domain is impossible limits. The affective side
of the learner is probably one of the very biggest influences on language learning
success or failure. Affective strategies are divided into three main sets are lowering
anxiety, encouraging self, and taking emotional temperature. Next, social strategies
can be stated that they are related to social to mediating activity and transacting with
others. Three sets of social strategies, they are asking a question, cooperating with
others, and empathizing with others. Since learning strategies are considered as a sign
of improving the students’ language performance, and impressive researcher, namely
Oxford (1990), devises the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) that can
be sent for assessing kinds of learning strategies that are mostly used by the students.
 Syafryadin | 36

The strategy questionnaire most often used around the world at this time is the strategy
inventory for language learning (R. Oxford, 1990). There are two versions: one for
native speakers of English (80 items) and another for learners of English as second
language 50 items). The SILL is one of the major useful manuals of learner strategy
assessment tools currently available. A SILL package includes a short set of directions
to the students with a sample item, the 50-item instrument, scoring worksheet on which
students record their answers and calculate their averages for each strategy subscale
and their overall average, a summary profile that shows their results and provides
examples for self-interpretation, and a strategy graph that allowed each learner to
graph result from the SILL. It is estimated that 40-50 studies, including dissertation
and theses, have been done employing the SILL both in Indonesia and overseas
country. The SILL uses a 5 likers-scale for which the learners are asked to indicate
their responds (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) five responds represent on the following options: (1) never
or almost true of me, (2) usually not true of me, (3) somewhat true of me, (4) usually
true of me, (5) always or almost always true of me. The questionnaire consist of six
part namely part A, B, C, D, E, F and each part represent about earning strategies both
direct and indirect.
Direct strategies are classified into three parts: A, B, and C. Part A is about
remembering more effectively. This part represents memory strategies that are used
for entering new information into memory storage and retrieving it when the need for
communication (e.g., representing sound in memory, structured, reviewing, and using
physical responses)). Part B is using all mental processes which represent cognitive
strategies used for linking information with exiting schemata and for analysis.
Cognitive strategies are responsible for deep processing, forming and revising internal
mental models, and receiving and producing messages in the target language (e.g.,
repeating, getting ideas quickly, analyzing and taking notes). Part C is compensating
for missing knowledge, which represents compensation strategies include such
strategies are guessing and using gestures. Such strategies are needed to fill any gaps
in the knowledge of the language (e.g., switching to the mother tongue, using other
clues, getting help, and using synonym).
Indirect Strategies are classified into three parts namely D, E, and F. Part D is
organizing and evaluating learning which represents metacognitive strategies and
techniques used for organizing, planning, focusing, and evaluating one’s own learning
(e.g., linking new information with already known one, seeking practice,
opportunities, and self-monitoring). Part E is about managing emotions that represent
effective strategies that are used for handling feelings, attitudes, and motivation (e.g.,
lowering anxiety by use music, encouraging oneself, and discussing feelings with
others). Finally, part F is about learning with others which represents social strategies
that are used for facilitating interaction by asking questions and cooperating with
others in learning process (e.g., asking for clarification, cooperating with others, and
developing cultural understanding).
37 | VISION: JOURNAL FOR LANGUAGE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

Methodology

This study applied descriptive quantitative design, which aimed to know what
speaking strategies used and identify the differences in learning speaking strategies
applied by students at class XI, particularly in speaking skills. It means that the study
describes the factual and natural data obtained in the field of the study. The purpose of
using this method is to describe the facts and characteristics of a given population or
area of interest systematically, factually, and accurately (Isaac & Michael, 1982).
The participants of this study were students at classes in SMAN X and SMAN Y, the
high schools in Semarang, in which the name of the schools were pseudonyms as the
research ethic. The researcher investigated class XI for the 2018/2019 academic year
from both schools. Each class consisted of 30 students. So, the total numbers of
subjects were 60 students. In this study, the researcher used close-ended
questionnaires, which is adapted from a Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL) version for speakers of Language Learning English (version 7.0 [EFL/ESL]©
(Oxford, 1989: 293) as the instrument.
In collecting the data, the researcher carried out the following procedures.
Firstly, the researcher chooses the respondents of the research. Second, the researcher
worked together with the teacher to determine the proper time for giving
questionnaires. Third, the researcher gave respondents a brief explanation about how
to fill out the worksheet of close-ended questionnaires. Fourth, the researcher asked
the students to read the questionnaires and fill out the worksheet in 40 minutes. The
fifth, the researcher collected close-ended questionnaires and worksheets directly and
gave the score.
All collected data in this study were considered with a scoring used in the Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (version 7.0) adapted from [ESL/EFL]© (Oxford,
1989), with several procedures. First, the researcher summed up the result of each part
of SILL and divided by a number of items in each part in order to get the overall and
average score of an individual subject. Second, the results of each part transferred to
a profile worksheet. This profile showed learners SILL results that informed the type
of strategies they used in learning English, especially in Speaking.
Third, the researcher classified the results into three different criteria as in the
following scheme;
High Always or almost always used 4.5 to 5.0

Usually used 3.5 to 4.4

Medium Sometime used 2.5 to 3.4
Low General not used 1.5 to 2.4

Never or almost never used 1.0 to 1.4

 Syafryadin | 38

Fourth, the researcher made a SILL Graph, from the results of students SILL averages
for each part. In this graph, it showed which type of strategies that were mostly used
by students at class IX of SMAN X and SMAN Y in improving their speaking skill.

Findings

The finding of this study showed that both students XI1 of SMAN X and SMAN Y
generally had the same and different learning strategies. Students at class XI1 of SMAN
X and Y prefer to use the organizing and evaluating learning. The frequent use of these
strategies categorized in the high-level. While other types of strategies such as
managing emotions, remembering more effectively, using all mental processes,
learning with others, and compensating for missing knowledge are categorized in the
medium-level either for class XI1 of SMAN X and XI1 of SMAN Y students. Below
explored the students’ classification of how frequently they used learning strategies in
high, medium, or low levels.

Table 1 The Students Classification on Remembering More Effectively Strategies

Remembering More Effectively

High Medium Low
Students Total
Almost or Usually General not Never or rarely
Sometimes
almost used used used used

SMAN X - (0%) 6 (20%) 18 (60%) 6 (20%) - (0%) 30 (100%)

SMAN Y - (0%) 4 16 10 (33.3%) - (0%) 30 (100%)
(13.3%) (53,3%)

The table 1 shows that from 30 students of SMAN X, six students or (20%) use this
strategy in the high level, 18 students or (60%) use this strategy in the medium level
and six students or (20%) use this strategy in the level low level. While from 30
students of SMAN Y, four students or (13.3%) use this strategy in the high level, 16
students or (53.3%) use this strategy in the medium level, and ten students or (33.3%)
use this strategy in low level

Table 2. The Students Classification on Using All Mental Process Strategies

Using All Mental Process Strategies

High Medium Low
Students Almost Total
Never or
or General
Usually used Sometimes rarely
almost not used
used
used
39 | VISION: JOURNAL FOR LANGUAGE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

SMAN X - (0%) 10 (33.33%) 17 (56.6%) 3 (10%) - (0%) 30 (100%)

SMAN Y - (0%) 7 (23.3%) 22 (73,3%) 1 (3.3%) - (0%) 30 (100%)

The table 2 shows that from 30 students of SMAN X, ten students or (33.3%) use this
strategy in the high level, 13 students or (56.6%) use this strategy in the medium level
and three students or (10%) use this strategy in the low level. While 30 students of
SMAN Y, seven students, or (23.3%) use this strategy at the high level, 22 students or
(73.3%) use this strategy in medium level, and one student or (3.3%) uses this strategy
in the low level.

Table 3. Students Classification on Ccompensating for Missing Knowledge Strategy

Compensating for Missing Knowledge Strategy

High Medium Low
Students Almost or Total
General Never or
almost Usually used Sometimes
not used rarely used
used
SMAN X - (0%) 8 (26.6%) 19 (63.3%) 3 (10%) - (0%) 30 (100%)
SMAN Y 2 (6.6%) 8 (26.6%) 14 (46,6%) 6 (20%) - (0%) 30 (100%)

The table 3 shows that from 30 students of SMAN X, eight students or (26.6%) use
this strategy in the high level, 19 students or (63.3%) use this strategy in the medium
level and three students or (10%) use this strategy in the low level. While 30 students
of SMAN Y, ten students, or (33.3%) use this strategy in the high level, 14 students or
(46.6%) use this strategy in the medium level, and six students or (20%) use this
strategy in the low level.

Table 4. The Students Classification on Organizing and Evaluating Learning

Strategy

Organizing and Evaluating Learning

High Medium Low
Students Never Total
Almost or General or
Usually used Sometimes
almost used not used rarely
used
SMAN X 2 (6.66%) 17 (56.6%) 8 (26.6%) 3 (10%) - (0%) 30 (100%)
SMANY 1 (3.33%) 14 (46.6%) 13 (43.3%) 2 (6.66%) - (0%) 30 (100%)

The table 4 shows that from 30 students of SMAN X, 19 students or (63.3%) use this
strategy in the high level, eight students or (26.6%) use this strategy in the medium
level and three students or (10%) use this strategy in the low level. While 30 students
 Syafryadin | 40

of SMAN Y, 15 students, or (50%) use this strategy at the high level, 13 students or
(43.3%) use this strategy in medium level, and two students or (6.66%) use this
strategy in the low level. To clarify about the percentage of student’s classification in
this strategy will be figured out in the following chart.

Table 5. The Students Classification on Managing Emotion Strategies

Managing Emotion
Mediu
High Low
Students m Total
Almost or
Someti General Never or
almost Usually used
mes not used rarely used
used
SMAN X 2 (6.66%) 11 (36.6%) 14 (46.6%) 3 (10%) - (0%) 30 (100%)
SMAN Y 1 (3.33%) 12 (40%) 14 (46.6%) 3 (10%) - (0%) 30 (100%)

The table 5 shows that from 30 students of SMAN X, 13 students or (43.3%) use this
strategy in the high level, 14 students or (46.6%) use this strategy in the medium level
and three students or (10%) use this strategy in the low level. While 30 students of
SMAN Y, 13 students, or (43.3%) use this strategy at the high level, 14 students or
(46.6%) use this strategy in a medium level, and three students or (10%) use this
strategy in the low level.

Table 6. The Students Classification on Learning with Others Strategies

Learning with Others

High Medium Low
Stud Never
Almost or or Total
ents Usually General
almost Sometimes almost
used not used
used never
used
SMAN - (0%) 11 (36.6%) 17 (56.6%) 2 (6.66%) - (0%)
X
30 (100%)
SMAN 1 (3.33%) 10 (33.3%) 17 (56.6%) 2 (6.66%) - (0%) 30 (100%)
Y

The table 6 shows that from 30 students of SMAN X, 11 students or (36.6%) use this
strategy in the high level, 17 students or (56.6%) use this strategy in the medium level,
and two students or (6.6%) use this strategy in the low level. While students of SMAN
Y, 11 students, or (36.6%) use this strategy at the high level, 17 students (56.6%) use
this strategy in the medium level, and two students or (6.66%) use this strategy in the
low level.
41 | VISION: JOURNAL FOR LANGUAGE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

The following section has presented a comparison of student’s learning strategies

between SMAN X and SMAN Y students. The result is a collective result based on
their overall average Sill result in the following.

Table 7. Average and Overall Average sill Result Between SMAN X and SMAN Y
Students

Language Learning Strategies

Part A Part B Part C Part D Part E Part F
(Remembering (Using (Compensating (Organizing (Managing (Learning
Overall
Students more All for Missing and Emotion) with
Average
Effectively ) Mental Knowledge ) Evaluating others )
Process Learning)
)
SMAN 3.03 3.19 3.01 3.50 3.42 3.17 3.22
X 2.74 3.08 3.09 3.51 3.32 3.24 3.16
SMAN
Y

The overall score for students on the table above shows different, and similarities of
learning strategies applied in learning English. For SMAN X students applied to
organize and evaluating learning is ranked in the first place, with an average score of
3.50 and Compensating for Missing Knowledge is in the lowest score with 3.01. For
students of SMAN Y applied to organize and to evaluate learning is ranked in the first
place, with the average score 3.51 and Remembering more Effectively is in the last
place, with the average score 2.74.
In short, organizing and evaluating learning or metacognitive strategies was the
most popular and expense than other types of strategies and this finding is essentially
based on the expert’s assumption that L2 learners who learn English will be able to
use viable metacognitive learning strategies (O’Malley et al, Bialystok, in Oxford
1990, internet document).

Discussion

An impressive result has been drawn between SMAN X and SMAN Y students, where
students of both schools were dominant in part D (organizing and evaluating learning).
This part is relating to the metacognitive strategy, which helps the learners to organize
their learning through planning one’s learning, centering, monitoring, and evaluating
how well one has done. Planning is a crucial metacognitive strategy in second of
foreign language learning skills. Planning, according to Oxford’s theory, involves a
variety of ways; for instance, setting goals and objectives that will be achieved in
learning.
This study also performed similarities that result in other types of strategies
between SMAN X and SMAN Y students. Both also dominantly (highest average
 Syafryadin | 42

score) used Part E (managing emotion), and all statements in this part focus on the
Affective strategies, which help the learners to organize their feeling or emotion.
Emotion includes all thoughts and actions of human beings. As “ an intellectual,” as
we know would like to think we are influenced by our emotion as well as in learning
a language. According to Ehrman (1996) cited in (Muslatif, 2006) stated that “every
imaginable feeling is going to accompany the students’ learning”. There can be
positive feelings such as Joy, happiness, pleasure, contentment, enthusiasm,
satisfaction, warmth believed in making language learning more effectively.
Meanwhile, negative feeling such as anxiety, tension, fear, frustration, lack of
confidence is creating learning difficulties. A variety of ways in affective strategies
(e.g., lowering anxiety by listening music, encourage self by making a positive
statement or writing feeling into language learning diary) are very important to be
applied in order the students are able to control their emotional state, to keep
themselves motivated and on-task, and to get help when they need it ( Dasereau 1985
in Oxford (1990). These findings were in line with Oxford (1990), who stated that
young learners seem to involve their feeling as they attempt to learn a new language.
However, when they become more advanced learners, they are not familiar with
paying attention to their feeling as a part of the learning process.
Part B (using all mental Proces) was another type of strategy also used by SMAN
X students, slightly beyond SMAN Y students in medium-frequency. Part B represents
cognitive strategies that help learners to make sense of learning by thinking and
understanding their learning. Practising, revising, sending messages, analyzing and
reasoning, and creating the structure for input and output are ways in the cognitive
framework. Cognitive strategies also associated with human language acquisition,
which operates directly on incoming information of the target language and manipulate
it in ways that can enhance language learning (e.g., repeating, getting the idea quickly,
reasoning deductively and summarizing).
As can be seen, the data set out in the finding section, SMAN X and SMAN Y
students also report using Part C (compensating for missing knowledge) or
compensation strategies in the medium-frequency. Primarily, this strategy can be used
by students to help them compensate for the lack of knowledge in using the target
language. Thus, Oxford (1990) reveals two significant kinds of strategies, namely
guessing intelligently in listening and reading and listening by using linguistic clues
that can help the learners to recognize and understand every single word in the text
before they comprehend the overall meaning of the text. Overcoming limitation both
in speaking and writing consist of eight strategy sets (e.g., switching to the mother
tongue, getting help, using mime or gesture, selecting to the topic, coining words,
adjusting to the message and using a synonym) can contribute to the learning by
allowing learners to stay in conversation or keep their writing.
Part A (Remembering more effectively) another strategy was in the medium
frequency, either SMAN X or SMAN Y students, and this was the lowest average
43 | VISION: JOURNAL FOR LANGUAGE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

score for whole strategies. Seven statements in this part are representing memory
strategies used by the learners to help them acquiring information on language items
into long term or short term memory. The information might be found from some
learning activities such as listening, reading, and other communication activities
(Oxford, 1990). A variety of ways which involve in these strategies, such as students
using semantic mapping, using keywords, and reviewing well, also enable the learners
to retrieve information when needed to facilitate the learning activities (listening,
reading, speaking, and writing).
Based on the finding for the Part F, SMAN Y has a higher average score than
SMAN X. Part F (leaning with others) or social strategies was the last choice tended
in the medium-frequency. Consequently, these strategies imply proficiency increase.
In this case, the learners are required to feel confident and recognize the importance of
interacting with others to improve their performance (e.g., asking for clarification,
cooperating with others, and developing cultural understanding). Both SMAN X and
SMAN Y students used social strategies to become even better.

Pedagogical Implication

Based on the result of this study that English major students either SMAN X or SMAN
Y students are dominantly in part D that has strong connection with the learners'
metacognition is essentially intents to establish of self-directed and encouragement of
learners independence through planning, centering, monitoring and evaluating the
success of learning activity. It is supported by Ellis (2006) that connectionism seeks to
explain SLA in terms of mental representations and information processing while
rejecting the innate endowment hypothesis. In this case, the processing of learning can
be connected to the learning strategy that will be determined by the students.
In the language classroom setting, it is important for the teacher to develop the
students’ metacognition to help them become better language learners inside and
outside the classroom because they will not always have the teacher around to guide
them when they use the language. Johnson (2003) stated that the behaviourism theory
that language learners’ behaviour either in the classroom or outside the classroom, can
become their learning style and strategy to improve their ability. Partly, this can be
achieved through a specific “learners training” in metacognitive strategies: equipping
the students with the means to guide themselves by explaining the strategies to them
and help them to select the most appropriate strategies. Oxford (1990), one of the
leading teachers and researchers in the language learning strategies field, provided a
wealth of activities to heighten the learners’ awareness of strategies and their ability
to use them. For example, teach the learner to find out about language learning by
reading books and talking with other people are good preparation before learning. The
teacher teaches the students to pay attention to language learning task and to ignore
distracters by giving directed attention to a specific of the language (e.g. the old lady
 Syafryadin | 44

ahead of you in the bus is chastising a young man in a new language, listen to their
conversation to find out exactly what she is saying to him). This example is also
explained by Long (1996) who stated that the interaction between students and
teachers in learning could give a positive influence to their ability improvement, and
by interaction, the students also can find out the strategies that can be used for them in
learning. Another example also can be done in teaching speaking, the teacher can start
with reflection (‘How do you feel about speaking English?), knowledge about
language (‘What do you know about speaking English), and self evaluation (‘How
well are you doing).

Conclusion and Recomendation

Based on the finding, it showed that the most popular strategy used for both SMAN X
and SMAN Y students was organizing and evaluating learning or metacognitive
strategies. Then, both schools strongly used managing emotion or metacognitive
strategies as their learning strategies in learning speaking. The difference of learning
strategies used in both schools occurred in medium level, in order SMAN X students
used using all mental processes, learning with others, remembering more effectively,
and compensating for missing knowledge strategies. Then, SMAN Y students used
learning with others, compensating for missing knowledge, using all mental processes,
and remembering more effective strategies. The finding of this study gives a reflection
on how they learn English and as an input for them to be aware of their learning
strategies that can be used in improving their language skills as well as other students
who do not include as the sample of this study. In addition, the researcher of the present
study recommends further research in the area of learning strategy. The first, this study
revealed that L2 stage differences made the learners chosen similar and different
language learning strategies so that further research could be investigated from
different factors such as sex and cultural background of the students. Second, this study
did not explore the effect of learning strategy use with the students' achievement.
Third, this study also should be becoming a basic consideration of a language teacher
to guide the learners to be aware of their own learning strategy because using
appropriate strategies in learning the target language has great potential in improving
the students’ language performance and the students’ communicative competence.
45 | VISION: JOURNAL FOR LANGUAGE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

References

Alfian, A. (2016). The Application of Language Learning Strategies of High School

Students In Indonesia. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 3(2),
140–157. https://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v3i2.5509

Amir, M. (2018). Language Learning Strategies Used by Junior High School EFL
Learners. Language and Language Teaching Journal, 21(1), 94–103.
https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.2018.210110

Bruen, J. (2001). Strategies for Success: Profiling the Effective Learner of German.
Foreign Language Annals, 34(3), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2001.tb02403.x

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Cognitive Perspectives on SLA. AILA Review, 19(1), 100–121.

https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.08ell

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1982). Handbook in research and evaluation : a

collection of principles, methods, and strategies usefull in planning, design and
evaluation of studies in education and the behavioral science. San Diego: Edits
Publisher.

Johnson, M. (2003). A philosophy of second language acquisition.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3657444

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language

acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.

Mistar, J., & Umamah, A. (2014). Strategies of Learning Speaking Skill by Indonesian
Learners of English and Their Contribution to Speaking Proficiency. TEFLIN
Journal, 25(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v25i2/203-216

Mistar, J., Zuhairi, A., & Umamah, A. (2014). Strategies of Learning Speaking Skill
by Senior High School EFL Learners in Indonesia - Asian EFL Journal : Asian
EFL Journal. The Asian EFL Journal, (80), 65–74.

Muslatif, Y. (2006). Learning Strategies of Successful Foreign Language Learner of

English Study Program FKIP Haluoleo University. Universitas Haluoleo.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology A Textbook for Teacher. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language

acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Syafryadin | 46

Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with

implications for strategy training. System, 17(2), 235–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(89)90036-5

Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking From Theory to Practice.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shi, H. (2017). Learning Strategies and Classification in Education. Institute for

Learning Styles Journal •, 1(1), 24–36.

Wael, A., Asnur, M. N. A., & Ibrahim, I. (2018). Exploring Students’ Learning
Strategies in Speaking Performance. International Journal of Language
Education, 2(1), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v2i1.5238

Yulianti, D. B. (2018). Learning strategies applied by the students in writing English

text. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 8(1), 19–38.
https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v8i1.583

View publication stats