LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE ORAL PROFICIENCY

ACROSS INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

(CASE STUDY OF THREE LEARNERS OF WIRALODRA UNIVERSITY)

Indra Yoga Prawiro

yogaprawiro@gmail.com
Wiralodra University and Semarang State University

Abstract
This study isaimed to find out the primary strategy used by learners. This study used
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) which was proposed by Oxford (1990)
and used the theory of Communicative Competence (CC) proposed by Celce Murcia
(1995) as a theoretical foundation and standard of proficiency. The communication itself
was interpreted based on the Test result of Spoken English (TSE) rating scale that
proposed by Brown (2004) to establish the kinds of learning strategies.A qualitative
research design was used in this study and embracing characteristics of a case study. The
data were obtained from three instruments. They are questionnaires, interview,
andobservation.The findings showed that there are two primary strategies of three
learners which were used to reach their oral proficiency. Those are metacognitive and
affective strategies. The findings showed that the strategyused by Student1 (S1) and
Student 2 (S2) in reaching oral proficiency are similar that is Metacognitive Strategy. It
indicated that both S1 and S2 focus to manage their learning activities. While, Student 3
(S3) preferred to use affective strategy in reaching oral proficiency. It means that to reach
their oral proficiency S3 preferred to manage their feelings. Based on these findings, it is
recommended that six categories of language learning strategies especially metacognitive
and affective strategy adopted by other students to reach their oral proficiency.

Key words: Strategy Inventory for LanguageLearning (SILL), OralProficiency.

Introduction
Every single human is different. There are nopeopleidentified similar in
physical and thought even though they were born from similar womb. Even if
twins, they have different ways to show that they are different. Including on
teaching and learning process, each learner has their own method to reach their
goal. They try to find out kinds of strategies that appropriate for themselves and
apply those strategies during teaching and learning process.Several learners are
successful in using those kinds of strategies in second or foreign language
learning. But, several of them sometimes think those strategies are not appropriate
for them. Those who success in applying the strategies thinks learning strategies
can be the first step taken by them to enhance their own learning. Moreover,
language learning strategies also can be tools. Tools are used because there is a
problem to solve, a task to accomplish, an objective to meet, or a goal to
attain(Oxford, R L., 1990:11).This research mainly investigates about the use of
several strategies which is used by learners to enrich their oral proficiency.So,
what is the primary strategy used by the three learners of Wiralodra University in
their teaching and learning process? It becomesthe primary focus in this
investigation.

i
Literary Review
Language learning strategies are the main factors that help determine how - and
how well – our students learn a second or foreign language (Oxford, 1990:1). O’Malley
and Chamot (1990:1) define learning strategies as special ways of processing information
that enhance comprehension, learning or retention of information. This definition is
expanded by Oxford (1990:8) as specific actions taken by the learner to make learning
easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective and more transferable to
new situations. Oxford developed two broad categories of second/foreign learning
strategies: Direct and Indirect strategies.Direct learning strategies contain three types of
strategies: Memory, Cognitive and Compensation.While indirect learning strategies also
consist of three types of strategies: Metacognitive, Affective and Social.
1. MemoryStrategiesare strategies which used by students to help them remember new
language items.
2. Cognitive Strategiesarestrategies which help students think about and understand the
new language.
3. Compensation Strategiesare strategies used by students to help them make up for
limited or missing knowledge.
4. Metacognitive Strategiesare relating to how students manage their own learning.
5. Affective Strategiesare relating to how students feel about the new languages.
6. Social Strategiesare strategies used by students which involve interaction with other
people. Its help the learner work with others and understand the target culture as well
as the language.

Method
To get the information of this study, the researcher intended to investigate three
students’ strategies that have succeeded to achieve their oral proficiency. The parameters
used are their score on speaking 1, 2 and three and their GPA. The researcher took the
data by doing observation, conducting interview and distribute questionnaire. Researcher
conducted observation to investigate students who surely identified as proficient learner
especially in speaking. While, questionnairewere used to know their strategies in learning
language and in conducting this study the writerused SILL (Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning). The interview was also conducted to full fill gap information which
was not available in list of questionnaire.

Findings and Interpretation

The students are asked to fulfill SILL worksheet that has been prepared by
researcher before. The result of strategy inventory for language learning (SILL) shows
kinds of strategies are used by three students. These results are not indicated right or
wrong answer but it tells how often the students use the strategies for learning English
especially in reaching oral proficiency. The result shows that there are two primary
strategies of three learners. Those are metacognitive strategies and affective strategies.

The Primary Strategy Used by the Students to Reach Their Oral Proficiency
No Name Code Strategy Category Frequency Level
1 882030110035 S1 Metacognitive Strategy 4,2 High
2 882030110125 S2 Metacognitive Strategy 4,3 High
3 882030110126 S3 Affective Strategy 3,7 High
As the table indicates, Both S1 and S2 show that the primary strategy is used by
them is metacognitive strategy. It means that in reaching oral proficiency they are focus
in managing their learning activities. They are monitoring their activities as well as

ii
evaluating their progress so they can reach the other steps in time. But, even though they
have similar strategy to reach the oral proficiency, the questionnaire shows that the
average score of S2 is slightly higher than S1. The questionnaire of SILL has shown the
result that frequency level of S2 is 4.3. Whereas frequency level of S1 is 4.2 and even S1
and S2 have similar primary strategies. But in real activities they have different habit. For
example: when S1 always tries to find as many ways as she can to use English. In the
other side, S2 only responds this activity with the score 4. That score has shown that there
is any different quantity in applying those activities.
Different from S1 and S2 that show metacognitive strategies as primary
strategies of them by using SILL version 7.0 that has been proposed by Rebecca L
Oxford shown that the primary strategy of S3 is affective strategies. This result indicates
that S3 concerned to manage their feelings during learning process, so S3 can decrease
their anxious, afraid or nervous level. The mean frequency of S3 is 3,7. The score 3,7
shows the high number of quantity in using affective strategy to reach the oral
proficiency. S3 always tries to relax whenever she feels afraid of using English. S3
always tries to manage her to be enjoying in doing any kind of activities because, by
decreasing pressure inside herself, it will help her to finish her duty earlier.
Here are the judgments based on researcher perspective. The judgments are
used to show how proficient they are in speaking skill especially on that level.The
judgment from the writer based on Speaking Proficiency Scales who proposed by Brown
(2001:406-407) andTest of Spoken English rating scale taken from Brown
(2004:166).The categories of speaking scoring scales consist of pronunciation, fluency,
student’s comprehension, vocabulary and grammar. Here are the score of three learner
based on the Speaking Proficiency Scales Categories.

Students Speaking Score

No Students P F C V G Total Final Students’ Communication
Code Score Score Scale
1. S1 4 4.5 5 4 4 86 A Almost Always Effective
2. S2 4 5 5 4.5 4 90 A Almost Always Effective
3. S3 4 5 5 4 4 88 A Almost Always Effective

Based on speaking presentation that has been conducted, the writer gets the real
information if S1, S2 and S3 can show their best performance means that S1, S2 and S3
are proficient in oral language.From student’s performance, researcher can conclude that
between S1, S2 and S3 shows functions performed clearly and effectively. They are able
to deliver all of information to the audience. The responses of the students also can
indicate if three learners are success to transfer the information. The audiences show their
understanding by making the sample of conditional sentences.A speaking score in their
KHS (study result score) also shows that S1, S2 and S3 have high grade based on range
score which is used in their university.

Conclusion
Based on the result of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) that the
writer used in this research, the writer concludes that between S1, S2 and S3 have
different frequency level in conducting strategy to reach their oral proficiency. The
primary strategy is used in reaching oral proficiency by S1 & S2 are Metacognitive
strategies. Whereas,S3 shows different result from S1 and S2. By using SILL version 7.0
that has been proposed by Rebecca L Oxford shown that the primary strategy of S3 is
affective strategy.

iii
 Related to the oral proficiency level of three learners in this research, the writer
can conclude that based on the range score is used in Wiralodra University they are in the
highest level because all of them get score A in speaking 3, means they are very good in
speaking. The writer used oral proficiency scoring categories which are proposed by
Brown to measure how proficient they are in speaking.

Suggestion
After observing the class, the researcher can know the proficient level of
three learners in oral skill and their effort in presentation. By using questionnaire
and interview, the researcher can know the use of six strategies and fifty activities
based on individual differences to reach their oral proficiency. So by conducting
this research the writer hopes, the other students can learn from the right students
to know their appropriate strategy so they can imitate those ways to improve their
quality especially in speaking skill.

References
Alwasilah, AChaedar. (2011). PokoknyaKualitatif.PT DuniaPustaka Jaya. Jakarta
Bassey, Michael. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices.
New York: Longman.
Emilia, Emi. (2009). MenulisTesisdanDisertasi.Alfabetha. Bandung.
Fewell, Norman. (2010). Language Learning Strategies and English Language
Proficiency: an Investigation of Japanese EFL University Students.
TESOL Journal.
Griffiths, C & M. Parr, Judy.(2001). Language – Learning Strategies: Theory and
Perception. Oxford University Press.ELT Journal.
Griffiths, Carol.(2004). Language Learning Strategies: Theory and Research.
Oxford University Press.ELT Journal.
Heigham, J & Croker, R. A. (2009). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistic, A
Practical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. Great Britain.
Hughes, Rebecca. (2002). Teaching and Researching Speaking. Edinburg:
Longman.
Luoma, Sari. (2004). Assessing Speaking.Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press.
Murcia, Celce. (1995). Issues in Applied Linguistics, article: Discourse Based
Perspective on Second Language acquisition. New South Wales: New
South Wales University.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., &Chamot, A. U. (1990).Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should
Know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

iv
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language Learning Style and Strategies: an Overview. The
Modern Language Journal.
Wenden, A & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. United
Kingdom: Prentice Hall International.

Curriculum Vitae
Complete Name : Indra Yoga Prawiro
Institution : Wiralodra University
Education : - Master’s Students of Semarang State University
- S1 of English Education in Wiralodra University
Research Interest : To share the research findings to be applied widely by
other learners in learning process.