ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 1 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran |Vol. 5| No. 1|Year 2018 Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran provides a vital forum for exchanging ideas in order to enrich the theories and practices of English education in Indonesia and across the globe. The journal focuses, but not limited to, on the following topics: English language teaching, language teaching and learning, language teaching methodologies, pedagogical techniques, teaching and curricular practices, curriculum development and teaching methods, program, syllabus, and materials design, second and foreign language teaching and learning, language education, teacher education and professional development, teacher training, cross-cultural studies, bilingual and multilingual education, translation, language teaching for specific purposes, new technologies in language teaching, and testing and evaluation. It provides an academic platform for teachers, lecturers, and researchers to contribute innovative work in the field. Editorial Team Editor in Chief Lenny Marzulina, State Islamic University of Raden Fatah, Palembang, Indonesia Managing Editors Mohammad Holandiyah, State Islamic University of Raden Fatah, Palembang, Indonesia Annisa Astrid, State Islamic University of Raden Fatah, Palembang, Indonesia, Akhmad Habibi, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Jambi University, Indonesia Assistant Editors Nova Lingga Pitaloka, State Islamic University of Raden Fatah, Palembang, Indonesia Janita Norena, State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang, South Sumatera, Indonesia Deta Desvitasari, State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang, Indonesia Web Production and Technical Editor Ferdiaz Saudagar, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Jambi University, Indonesia International Editorial Board Jeffrey Ayala Milligan, The Florida State University, USA Thomas Luschei, Urban Leadership PhD Program, Claremont Graduate University, USA Judit Navracsics, University of Pannonia, Hungary Amirul Mukminin, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Jambi University, Indonesia Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia Florante P. Ibarra, Central Luzon State University, the Philippines ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 2 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Dairabi Kamil, State Islamic Institute of Kerinci, Indonesia Hadiyanto, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Jambi University, Indonesia Eddy Haryanto, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Jambi University, Indonesia Dian Erlina, State Islamic University of Raden Fatah, Palembang, Indonesia, Indonesia Siti Rahma Sari, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Jambi University, Indonesia Mukhlash Abrar, Jambi University and Queens University Belfast, UK Failasofah, Jambi University and University of Pannonia, Hungary Masbirorotni, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Jambi University, Indonesia Focus and Scope Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran provides a vital forum for exchanging ideas in order to enrich the theories and practices of English education in Indonesia and across the globe.The journal focuses, but not limited to, on the following topics: English language teaching, language teaching and learning, language teaching methodologies, pedagogical techniques, teaching and curricular practices, curriculum development and teaching methods, program, syllabus, and materials design, second and foreign language teaching and learning, language education, teacher education and professional development, teacher training, cross-cultural studies, bilingual and multilingual education, translation, language teaching for specific purposes, new technologies in language teaching, and testing and evaluation. It provides an academic platform for teachers, lecturers, and researchers to contribute innovative work in the field. Publication frequency Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran is published 2 times per year (June and December) in English by the English Education Study Program, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teaching Sciences, State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia. All research articles appearing in Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran have undergone a thoroughly blind peer-review. Publisher English Education Study Program, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teaching Sciences, State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia Jl. Prof. K.H. Zainal Abidin Fikri No. 01 Km. 3,5 Palembang Sumatera Selatan, Email: edukasi@radenfatah.ac.idOJS: http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi ISSN 2355-3669 (Print) 2503-2518 (Online) http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 3 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Contents 4 Editorial 6 -21 The Demotivating Factors of English Language Learning Among Madrasah Tsanawiah Students: The Case of One Madrasah in Jambi City EDDY HARYANTO, MAKMUR, YANTI ISMIYATI, AND SITI AISYAH 22-30 Learning to listen: Listening Strategies and Listening Comprehension of Islamic Senior High School Students DESMA YULISA 31-41 Applying Language Learning Strategies in the Foreign Language Listening Comprehension: A Study of Islamic Senior High School Students DIAN PERTIWI 42-52 Islamic Senior High School Students’ Language Learning Strategies and their English Achievement ISTI QOMARIAH 53-62 The Use of Islamic History Videos through Swell Strategy to Improve Senior High Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement JUNA WARNI 63-75 Learning Strategy towards Students’ Descriptive Writing Achievement Taught by Using Pick – List – Evaluate – Active – Supply – End Strategy LENNY MARZULINA 76-86 An investigation into a link Between Classroom Environment and EFL Student Teachers’ Academic Achievement MEI AFRILIANI AND MUHAMAD HOLANDYAH 87-96 Speaking Self-Efficacy and EFL Student Teachers’ Speaking Achievement TUTIK ALAWIYAH ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 4 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Editorial The fifth volume and issue 1 of Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran presents together eight articles that look into different issues on English teaching and English Education. This volume commences with the article “The Demotivating Factors of English Language Learning among Madrasah Tsanawiah Students: The Case of One Madrasah in Jambi City” by EDDY HARYANTO, MAKMUR, YANTI ISMIYATI, AND SITI AISYAH. The purpose of their study was to explore the demotivating factors of the learners in EFL learning at one madrasah in Jambi City. Particularly, this study was to find out the particular factors that demotivate madrasah students’ during the learning process. The result revealed that peer influences were as the main demotivation for the students. Other demotivators for EFL students in this research included school condition such as lack of resources and facilities. For the second article, “Learning to listen: Listening Strategies and Listening Comprehension of Islamic Senior High School Students,”DESMA YULISA identified the correlation and the influence between listening strategies and listening comprehension. The result revealed that there was a significant correlation between listening strategies and listening comprehension. Another attention-grabbing article proposed by DIAN PERTIWI, is entitled “Applying Language Learning Strategies in the Foreign Language Listening Comprehension: A Study of Islamic Senior High School Students.” The main purpose of her study was to empirically investigate the possible correlation and the influence between students’ language learning strategies and listening comprehension. The result showed that most of the students used metacognitive strategies were in medium level and sometimes used language learning strategies. The fourth article “Islamic Senior High School Students’ Language Learning Strategies and their English Achievement” is authored by ISTI QOMARIAH. Her study investigated the correlation between language learning strategies and English achievement, and explored the influence of language learning strategies on English achievement.This volume also presents an article, “The Use of Islamic History Videos through Swell Strategy to Improve Senior High Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement” by JUNA WARNI. The objectives of her study were to find out: (1) whether or not there was a significant improvement on students’ narrative writing achievement between before and after the students were taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy, and (2) whether or not there was a significant difference on students’ narrative writing achievement between the students who were taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy and those who were not. The other thought-provoking article for this issue, “Learning Strategy towards Students’ Descriptive Writing Achievement Taught by Using Pick – List – Evaluate – Active – Supply – End Strategy” is written by LENNY MARZULINA. The aims of the study were to find (1) the significant improvement on students’ descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE strategy, (2) the significant improvement in poor category taught by teacher’s strategy, (3) the significant difference on students' descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE and teacher’s strategy, (4) the significant difference in very good and fair categories taught by PLEASE strategy, (5) the influence of language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories, (6) the influence of language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE strategy, and (7) the interaction effects between language learning strategy toward students’ descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE and teacher’s strategies. Additionally, this volume presents “An investigation into a link Between Classroom Environment and EFL Student Teachers’ Academic Achievement” written by MEI AFRILIANI AND MUHAMAD HOLANDYAH. The aim of their study was to investigate the relationship ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 5 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi between classroom environment and academic achievement. The result showed that there was a significant correlation between classroom environment and the students’ academic achievement. Finally, this volumes presents an article, “Speaking Self-Efficacy and EFL Student Teachers’ Speaking Achievement” written by TUTIK ALAWIYAH whose study was to find out the significant correlation between students’ speaking self-efficacy and their speaking achievement and to know the significant influence of speaking self-efficacy on their speaking achievement. We wish you good reading! LENNY MARZULINA MOHAMMAD HOLANDIYAH ANNISA ASTRID AKHMAD HABIBI ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 6 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi The Demotivating Factors of English Language Learning Among Madrasah Tsanawiah Students: The Case of One Madrasah in Jambi City Eddy Haryanto Jambi University, Indonesia Eddy.haryanto@unja.ac.id Makmur Jambi University, Indonesia Makmur.yanti2159@gmail.com Yanti Ismiyati Batanghari University, Jambi, Indonesia Siti Aisyah Jambi University, Indonesia Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore the demotivating factors of the learners in EFL learning at one madrasah tsanawiah in Jambi City. Particularly, this study was to find out the particular factors that demotivate madrasah tsanawiah students’ during the learning process. Many studies have mainly focused on teachers’ motivation or students’ motivation and teachers’ motivation rather than student demotivation in English as a foreign language (EFL) learning context, whereas lack of data has been found on the factors that cause student demotivation in Indonesian EFL learning contexts at secondary school level. The participants were a purposive sample of English students who currently studied at a madrasah . The study was designed as a qualitative case study and involved a demographic questioner and face-to-face interviews for data collection. The result revealed that peer influences were as the main demotivation for the students. Other demotivators for EFL students in this research included school condition such as lack of resources and facilities. Suggestions for further research also are discussed. Keywords: madrasah, foreign language, learning, demotivation, case study Manuscript submitted: August 9, 2017 Manuscript revised: December 12, 2017 Accepted for publication: January 6, 2018 Introduction Research on motivation and demotivation may not be a new issue in the field of second language (L2) learning (Habibi, Sofwan, & Mukminin, 2016; Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015). According to Masgoret & Gardner (2003), motivational processes to students are related to the salience of English language learning in the classroom (as cited in Colak, 2008). Students who are motivated in the lesson in the classroom will be more active to follow the mailto:Eddy.haryanto@unja.ac.id mailto:Makmur.yanti2159@gmail.com ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 7 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi process of learning and challenging tasks to have a positive attitude toward the classroom, and to have a stronger belief to themselves. Additionally, Masgoret & Gardner (2003) stated that the motivated individual expends effort, is persistent and attentive to the task at hand, has goals desires, aspirations, enjoys the activity, experiences reinforcement from success and appointment from failure makes attributions concerning success or failure, and make use of strategies to aid in achieving goals (as cited in Colak, 2008). Unlike motivated individuals, the demotivated individuals have different characteristics from motivated individuals (Habibi, Sofwan, & Mukminin, 2016; Haryanto & Mukminin, 2012; Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015; Mukminin, Ali, & Fadloan, 2015). In the classroom, they might not be active to follow the process of learning and might not have positive attitude the lesson or might not have goal desires. Dörnyei (2001a) defines demotivation as “specific external forces that reduce or diminish the motivational basis of a behavioral intention or an ongoing action” (p. 143). These negative external factors include items such as the class environment, teaching situations, methods, teacher's behavior, and etc. Deci and Ryan (1985) introduced the concept of “amotivation”, which referred to “the relative absence of motivation that is not caused by a lack of initial interest but rather by the individual’s experiencing feelings of incompetence and helplessness when face with the activity” (p.144). In language learning, students' demotivation might be influenced by a variety of factors. For example, the use of authentic teaching materials and activities. Five demotivating factors regarding materials were (a) difficult to read, (b) too long, (c) too easy English, (d) shallow content, and (e) no interesting genre (Takase, 2004). Sakai and Kikuchi (2009) identified one demotivating factor as materials, a great number of textbooks and supplementary readers were assigned. Additionally, many studies on demotivation of learners’ personalities in language learning have been done. For example, Chamber (1993) found that lack of belief in learners’ capabilities, laziness and unwillingness to learn is the main characteristics of the demotivated students in Britain. Another study was done by Ikeno (2002) who found that the demotivating factors were related to learners’ personalities, such as feelings of inferiority about one’s English ability. Furthermore, learning content toward textbooks may also be a demotivating factor, for example, difficult grammatical structures or vocabulary words, and uninteresting materials, will decrease learners’ motivation (Dörnyei, 2001a; Falout & Maruyama, 2004; Kikuchi, 2007). Based on the facts above, it seems that most of the studies on motivation and demotivation in language learning have been done outside Indonesia. We are interested in studying student’s demotivation based on the fact that there is lack of studies on the factors that cause student demotivation in Indonesian EFL learning contexts at secondary education level, particularly for madrasah tsanawiah students in Jambi city. Thus, this study was aimed at investigating the demotivating factors of the students in EFL learning at the secondary level, particularly in madrasah tsanawiah. This study was conducted at one of the madrasas in Jambi city. To achieve the purpose of this study, the following research questions guide this study: 1. What are the particular factors that demotivate madrasah tsanawiah students during the learning process? 2. How do they overcome those demotivating factors during the learning process? Literature Review Demotivation Dörnyei (2005) defines demotivation as “specific external forces that reduce or diminish the motivational basis of a behavioral intention or an ongoing action” (p. 143). Deci and Ryan (1985) used a similar term, amotivation, which means the relative absence of motivation that is not caused by a lack of initial interest but rather by the individual’s experiencing feelings of ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 8 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi incompetence and helplessness when faced with the activity. Though, both of these terms concern with lack of motivation. They differ in that amotivation is related to general outcomes expectations that are unrealistic for some reasons whereas demotivation concerns specific external causes. A demotivated student is someone who was once motivated but has lost his or her commitment /interest for some reasons. In this study, the term demotivation refers to the lack of interest in learning process and difficult to understand the lesson, particularly in EFL context. This research is realized to be reflection for the candidate of the real student concerning on demotivation aspect. It is also expected to give contributions for student-teachers to think more critically about the problem and phenomenon, particularly in EFL context. It is important to make a distinction between the states of ‘diminished motivation’ and ‘total loss of motivation’, that is to say demotivation and amotivation respectively. Dörnyei (2001a) emphasizes that “demotivation does not by all means entail that all the positive influences that in the beginning made up the motivation basis have been lost” (p.143). According to him (2001a) demotives rather function as “resultant forces de-energizing the action but some other positive motives may still be active in a learner’s learning process” (p.143), for instance, someone who has partly lost his interest in learning English because the English teacher does not treat the students fairly, may still consider learning English important in today’s world (Yusuf, Yusuf, Yusuf, & Nadya, 2017). Amotivation, by contrast, according to Dörnyei (2001a) refers to the lack of motivation resulting from realizing that there is no point. Amotivation was introduced by Deci and Ryan (1985) as a constituent of their self-determination theory and they (1985, as explained by Dörnyei (2001a) define it as “the relative absence of motivation that is not caused by a lack of initial interest but rather by the individual’s experiencing feelings of incompetence and helplessness when faced with the activity” (p.144). According to a review by Vallerand (1997), four major types of amotivation can be found. Firstly, amotivation can result from a capacity-ability belief, meaning that the learners think that they do not have the ability to perform an action. Secondly, amotivation can result from strategy beliefs amotivation, meaning learners’ perceptions that the strategies used do not bring the desired outcomes. The third type of amotivation, capacity-effort belief, refers to amotivation due to beliefs that the behaviour is too demanding and requires too much effort. Lastly, the fourth type of amotivation, a helplessness belief, and results from a general perception that students’ efforts are inconsequential considering the enormity of the task to be accomplished. To sum up the difference between these two related terms, demotivation is related to specific external & internal forces whereas amotivation refers to general outcome expectations that are unrealistic for one reason or another (Dörnyei 2001a). Demotivating factors in learning English Learning content toward text books may be a demotivating factor. It is obviously to see that some text books used in language class (Erlina, Marzulina, Pitaloka, Astrid, Fikri Yansyah, & Mukminin, 2018), for example: difficult grammars or vocabulary words, not suitable or uninteresting materials, will decrease learners’ motivation (Dörnyei, 2001a; Falout & Maruyama, 2004; Kikuchi, 2007). If uninteresting and unpractical text books were used in class, students would show demotivating in learning. The pace of the text books, monotonous and boring lessons, inappropriate level of class activities, and total curricular load are also the demotivating factors in classes (e.g., Arai, 2004; Falout & Maruyama, 2004; Gorham & Christophel, 1992; Kikuchi, 2007; Kojima, 2004; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009; Yusuf, Yusuf, Yusuf, & Nadya, 2017). Though the student’s personality varies from person to person, it is a key factor that demotivates the student in learning foreign language. Many studies on demotivation of students’ personalities have been investigated (e.g., Abrar & Mukminin, 2016; Habibi, Sofwan, & Mukminin, 2016; Mukminin, Masbirorotni, Noprival, Sutarno, Arif, & Maimunah, 2015; Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015; Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015). Chambers’ (1993) questionnaires, for ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 9 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi example, considered that lack of belief in students’ capabilities, laziness and unwilling to learn are the main characteristics of the demotivated students in Britain (Chambers, 1993). Learning content and teaching material consist of the major part of a class and play a crucial role in the EFL classroom. Gorham and Christophel (1992) summarized the dislike of the subject area as one of the reasons in the process of learning language. They found the boring subject that had a negative influence on motivation. Studies on demotivating factors in learning English Among the limited studies available on students demotivation, Dörnyei (2001) conducted a research on 50 secondary school pupils in Budapest German who were studying either English as their second language. The data were collected through structured interview. He identified the teacher, lack of self confidence, negative attitudes toward L2, compulsory nature of L2 study, interference of other languages, negative attitudes towards L2 community, attitudes of group members, course book and inadequate school facilities as nine demotivating factors. Additionally, Dörnyei’s (2001a) definition of demotivation, focused on specific external forces that Japanese high school students may experience and that might cause their motivation to be reduced. On the basis of Kikuchi’s (in press) qualitative study and other former studies, developed a 35-item questionnaire to gather quantitative data. The participants were 112 learners of English from three private universities in Tokyo and Shizuoka, Japan. They were asked to complete the questionnaire on the Internet. Using factor analysis, five factors were extracted: (a) course books, (b) inadequate school facilities, (c) test scores, (d) non communicative methods, and (e) teachers’ competence and teaching styles. Based on these results, discuss possible demotivating factors in English classrooms in high schools in Japan. Next, the finding of a study done by Ahmad, Ahmed, Bukhari, and Hukhari (2011) in Pakistan indicated that Pakistani secondary students had problems with verb forms, narration, conjunctions, prepositions, articles, sentence arrangement, and reading comprehension. The findings of this study showed that non native speaker students had a variety of problems in learning English. The population of the study was comprised of all the class X students and English teachers of twenty four Provincial Goverment schools and twenty two federal goverment schools located in twenty four districts of NWFP (Khyber Pukhtunkwa). The sample of this study was representative of eight provincial goverment schools and eight federal goverment schools of Abbotavad, Haripur, Kohat, Mansehra, Malakand, Mardan, Nosherha and Peshawar comprising of 654 randomly selected students of class X. In addition, Underwood (1989) argues that students whose mother tongue contains similar or same intonation and stress patterns have fewer problems in comparison with students whose mother tongue is based on different rhythm. A great number of students believe that listening is the most difficult skill and they start to panic when they hear the word listening or see a CD player. But on the other hand, students, who learn from what they hear, usually achieve better results at listening. Then, Blauensteiner (2000) stated that in reading or writing teaching and learning process, one of factors that also influences is the topic. So, teachers should not force a topic to students’ in which they are not interested. In writing, the most common problems that the students encounter are related to the vocabulary or diction, grammar, and mechanics. Besides, other factors like the topic selection also hampered the student in learning this skill. Last, Dimyati and Mudjino (2009) described attitude as the ability of giving estimation toward something. There were some students who said that they lack of vocabulary, did not master grammar, and could not choose the right diction to be used. Those estimation will lead them to think that they could not speak in English, then those students will be afraid in making mistake if they try to speak in English. Lately, this self-estimation can bound those students from practicing speaking. Problems in learning can be caused by both internal and external factors. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 10 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Internal factors include attitude toward learning, motivation, concentration, underprivileged ability, intelligence and study habit, while external factors include the teachers, teaching and learning facilities, peer influences, and curriculum. After considering the result of previous study, we have our own perception concerning on demotivating factors among students at the current school in learning English as a foreign language. There are several reasons which might demotivate them in learning English, such as the environment where they stay beside school; they do not have basic knowledge of English. Additionally, because this school is one of Islamic school which also focuses on Islamic lesson until afternoon, so they do not provide additional time in learning English further. It is supported by lacking of sources such English book provided by school. To conclude the factors causing demotivation in EFL context, we found five effective factors on demotivation based on the previous studies on demotivation related to the problems of: teaching style, school facilities, class conditions, negative attitude toward foreign language, and poor self-confidence. Methodology Research design The research was undertaken as qualitative research with a case study approach (Mukminin, Kamil, Muazza, & Haryanto, 2017). According to Marshall and Rossman (1999), the goal of conducting a qualitative study has historically been “to explore, explain, or describe the phenomenon of interest” (p. 33) and a case study is one of the qualitative traditions in qualitative research. It is supported by Creswell (1994) who stated that it is commonly used to understand people’s experiences and to express their perspectives. This study was conducted in order to gain more in-depth information concerning the factors causing demotivation in EFL learning process based on English students’ experiences. In this case study, demographic questionnaire and face-to-face interview were used to gain more in-depth information concerning on the demotivating factors for English language learning among secondary school students based on English students’ expreriences. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, we used demographic questionnaire to gather basic information on the participants and their perspectives on demotivating factors under four major topics/ themes: physical conditions, teachers and students’ interest. Further, ten students (five males and five females) were recruited for the second phase of the study; interview. The criteria of recruitment for the present study were students who have the lowest score in learning English in each class of the second grade. Then, these ten students were considered typical cases and the best potential sources of data for the study. The time allocation for the interview was around 15 – 30 minutes for each participant. It was considered enough for the participants to answer the questions that have been prepared by the writer while the interview is processing. During the process, interview data were read and reread (Mukminin, Rohayati, Putra, Habibi, & Aina, 2017). Merriam (1998) wrote the process was called coding. She explained that “coding was related to assign some sort of shorthand designation to various aspects of your data” (p. 164) which would help the writer to get back or retrieve to specific data. To avoid the weakness of remembering what had been talked in the conversation, the reseracher used a recorder to record the conversation between the researcher as an interviewer and ten students as interviewees while collecting the data through interviewing was being carried out. Recording was due to support the data in the interview section so that the results could be later transcribed. In addition, recording was less dictating rather than taking a note in time of having interview. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 11 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Research sites and access The site for this study was Madrasah Tsanawiah As’ad Jambi. We decided to select the second grade, every class has 35 students in 5 classes, and in this case researcher just took ten students of each class at the second grade which has the lowest score of English subject. At the time of the study, ten students were involved as the participants who have bad score in English subject. The access to data was provided by asking permission to Headmaster of the school and English teacher of the class. We interviewed the participants after school and the place in dormitory or hall school. Sampling procedure and participants Sampling procedure of this research was purposive sampling. In purposive sampling, according to Johnson & Christensen (2008), the reseacher specified the characteristics of a population of interest and then tried to locate individuals who have those characteristics. The participants of this study were ten students who had the lowest score in English subject in their each class at one Madrasah Tsanawiah. These ten students were considered typical cases and the best potential sources of data for the study because they had the lowest English score in their each class, we took two students to represent of each class. We studied any matter concerning on the factors causing students demotivation in learning EFL. The problems would be analyzed through interview relating to the case. To keep the students’ identity, they were referred by pseudonym Data collection We used two kinds of techniques in collecting the data; demographic questionnaire and interview. Here, both techniques were linked to each other. We, first carried out demographic questionnaire, and then continued to conduct the interview to the participants. The place of doing the interview depended on the participants. Sometimes, the participants did not have the time in the school; therefore we interviewed the participant in their dormitory. For doing this interview, it took around 15-30 minutes, while it depended with the participant’s answer. If they did not give much comment, it only need a few minutes. In doing this interview, we used Indonesian language in order to avoid missunderstanding. After having interviews, we transcripted all data into English language. In this phase, the instrument of demographic questionnaire consists of two sections. Four questions of the first section were intended to gather basic demographic data about the informants;gender, age, kind of class that they have learned, and hobbies. Finally, the second section consisted of one question to find out what demotivates the participants when they learn EFL: What demotivates you most in learning EFL?. Both sections gathered data through open-ended questions and free writing. We gave demographic questionnaires to ten students at the beginning of meeting with these students. Before that, we gave over to the participants a concent form for the questionaire to get their participation in this research that was completely voluntary. They might skip any questions that they did not like to answer or withdraw their participation at any time without negative consequences. One of the ways to collect data was to interview research participants. An interview was a data-collection method in which in interviewer (the researcher or someone working for the researcher) asked questions of an interviewee (the research participant). According to Patton (1990), qualitative interviewing allowed a researcher to enter into the inner world of another person and to gain an understanding of that person’s perspectives. In this phase, we conducted face-to-face interview to ten students who have the lowest score at one Madrasah Tsanawiah after they completed the demographic questionnaire. The interview was directed by an interview guide that had been already prepared. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 12 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi At the beginning of each interview, we explain to the participants that we used two languages to interview, English and Indonesian. To interview the participants, we used Indonesian language and then we transcribed it into English. The interviewees were requested to provide a brief introduction about them before starting the interview. After that, the interview mostly included open-ended questions to find out what are the particular factors that demotivate the participants during the learning process. In addition, the participants also described how they felt about learning English, and what factors demotivated them when they learnt English. In conducting the interviews, the interviewer used interview techniques recommended by Lichtman (2010) for qualitative researchers. Accordingly, she used a variety of questions including general questions and specific questions (p. 146): General Question: “How do you see yourself as a students?” Specific Question: “What is your problem when learning English?” Follow-up questions were also often used by the interviewer to obtain additional information about the themes which were discussed by the participants. The interviewer also occasionally paraphrased and/or summarized the statements by the participants to ensure accuracy. At the end of an interview, the participant was asked to suggest a pseudonym to identify the interview in future reference. Each interview lasted from 30-60 minutes or depended on the participants, sometimes some people needed too much time to answer the questions while being interviewed and the other just needed 30 minutes and it also used audio-recorder. In reporting the findings of the study, verbatim from interview transcripts would be quoted to strengthen the basis of arguments. Data analysis In analyzing demographic questionnaires of the study, we analyzed it descriptively. The process of data analysis started with the transcription of interviews. The transcriptions of interviews were done by the researcher. After transcribing the interviews, we used coding to identify themes and patterns of the interview data. Miles and Huberman (1994) wrote, “coding is analysis” (p. 56), and Johnson and Christensen (2008) stated, “coding is a process of marking segments of data (usually text data) with symbols, descriptive words, or categories” (p. 534). Finally, to find and describe demotivating factors of the participants in learning EFL, we analyzed and reanalyzed the individual interviews data by using within-case and cross-case displays (Miles and Huberman 1994; Mukminin & McMahon, 2013; Mukminin, 2012b), and connected the data with my research questions. We used within-case and cross-case displays to: (1) spread interviews data so as to find and list every significant statement relevant to the topic, to see the patterns and themes, and to deepen understanding and explanation of my data among the cases (participants) and among the emergent themes; (2) to create clusters of meanings by organizing, grouping, or clustering the significant statements among the cases (participants) into themes or meaning units; and (3) to remove or reduce overlapping and repetitive data (Mukminin, Fridiyanto, & Hadiyanto, 2013). Trustworthiness In this research, to establish the “trustworthiness” (Lincoln and Guba 1985, p. 300 in Mukminin, 2012a) or to verify the accuracy of data, findings, and interpretations (Creswell 1998), we completed the following procedures. First, our research undertook prolonged engagement and repeated interviews (Creswell 1998 & Merriam 1998). We conducted individual interviews lasting between 30 and 60 minutes. Second, we triangulated data through multiple interviews. Ccording to Perry (2005), triangulation is “a procedure using multiple sources of data to see ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 13 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi whether they converge to provide evidence for validating interpretations of results” (p. 251). Third, member checks were used in order to get participant feedback on the accuracy and credibility of the data, findings, interpretations, and conclusions. Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 314) explain that “the most critical technique for establishing credibility.” To increase the dependability of the findings, we provided rich and thick description (Merriam 1998; Creswell 2003; Mukminin, Haryanto, Makmur, Failasofah, Fajaryani, Thabran, & Suyadi, 2013). Findings The purposes of the study were to investigate demotivating factors of English language learning among madrasah tsanawiah students at one madrasah in Jambi city, and describe how the students solved the problems in learning English. The perspectives of each student were collected to gain in-depth information about their problems in learning English. During the coding process, we found nine major themes with sub-themes. The four major themes were related to the first research question, one major theme was related to the second question, and four major themes were emerging themes, which are presented in the following table. Table 1. Major themes and sub-themes Themes Sub-Themes 1. Problems related to Listening skill 2. Problems related to Speaking skill 3. Problems related to Reading skill 4. Problems related to Writing skill 1. Vocabulary 2. Pronunciation 3. Grammar 4. Vocabulary 5. Solution to the problems 1. Asking to the teachers 2. Re-writing the important points 3. Opening dictionary 6. Underprivileged ability 7. Lack of resources and facilities 8. Inadequate Time 9. Peer influences Problems related to listening skill Underwood (1989) argued that students whose mother tongue contains similar or same intonation and stress patterns have fewer problems in comparison with students whose mother tongue is based on different rhythm. In this research, the researchers found two participants’ claims. “The other friend was so noisy, I can’t heard teacher said, and the words so difficult to understand.” (Budi) “I didn’t know what teacher said, because the words too difficult to understand sometime the teacher diction till five times, the school didn’t prepare language laboratory.” (Melati) The researchers assumed that the cause of the problem in listening skill because there were no facilities that support when learning listening, such as tape recorder, language laboratory and the second friend’s factor, the friend didn’t support the other friend to study because they make noisy class. So, it was difficult for other students to understand the lesson. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 14 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Problems related to speaking skill Dimyanti and Mudjiono (2009) described attitude as the ability of giving estimation toward something. There were some students who said that they lacked of vocabulary, did not master grammar, and found it difficult to pronounce the words. That estimation will lead them to think that they could not speak English, then those students will be afraid of making mistake if they try to speak English. Here, the participant stated that the students lacked in pronunciation, so it means the student did not have ability in speaking English, and when students spoke English their pronunciation were very bad. For this research, we found two participants reported, “It is still difficult to pronounce the words because the words are so complicated to say in English.” (Tulip) “The words are very difficult to spell, because in dictionary and when I want to say, it is very different, there are many consonant words, and the other friends didn’t want to speak English either.” (Anggrek) The students found some problems in speaking, the problems that students faced in speaking skill were they felt difficult to pronounce the words correctly and they friends didn’t support them to speak in the class. Problems related to reading skill The most common problem that hampers the student was the problem in understanding the text. The students usually found problems with the difficult words used in the text. This problem was related to the vocabulary. Kharsen (1993) and Bamford (1998) in Brown (2000) made the case that extensive reading is a key to students’ gains in reading ability, linguistic competence, vocabulary, spelling, and writing. In this research, we found three participants gave opinion, “I did not know how to read the text, I only read the words that were written in the text, sometime the other friends laugh when I was wrong in reading.” (Tulip) “I found problem in how to read, especially read long story because for me the words in the sentence is very difficult to read.” (Anggrek) “The textbook was blur, so the words didn’t look clearly, and I cannot read the sentence, in addition the words is very difficult to pronounce.” (Melati) They faced problems in reading word by word and text by text, the students were still hard when they wanted to read the sentences. Problems related to writing skill Blauensteiner (2000) stated that in reading or writing teaching and learning process, one of factors that also influences is the topic. The students found it difficult when they started writing a story because they lacked of vocabulary. We found three participants who gave comment. “When teacher asked to make a story, sometime I had to long time to write the story, because I always open dictionary to found word by word and also I did not know how to make the structure of making a sentence.” (Melati) “I found a problem in writing because I didn’t know the word that I will write in English, the word is so different when I write and when I said.” (Tulip) ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 15 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi “Writing is so difficult for me, because in English there are same word but different meaning, it makes me confused.” (Anggrek) Students faced many problems related to the writing skill. They were still confused when they wanted to use the word to write because they did not know what to write, so it was related to their lack of vocabulary. And then also they had problem with the meaning of words. In this lesson they ware also confused how to make good story because they did not know about the structure of a sentence. Solution of the problems The data analysis of interviews with the students indicated that there were three kinds of way related to the problems above. They were overcoming the problems with asking the teachers, re-writing the important points and opening dictionary as expressed by the participants below, “I ask teacher to explain again and then I write the important point.” (Budi) “I open dictionary when I faced difficult words, and sometimes I write the important point that explained by teacher.” (Melati) “I ask teacher to explain again to me and I write the important point that teacher was explain.” (Tulip) “I always open dictionary when I had difficult words and then I write the important point on my notebook.” (Anggrek) From these statements, the students explained when they faced problems they always asked the teacher and the teachers always explained again what students asked to them. After that student re-written the important points that the teachers explained, and sometimes the students open dictionary when they had difficult words. Underprivileged ability Learning English as a foreign language may not be easy for some students and may be easy for some other students. This might be caused by a variety of students’ ability in learning English. One of the emerging themes in this study was related to the underprivileged ability of the students as stated by the students below. “It is difficult to memorize, because there were so many vocabulary in English, and the words were so difficult to pronounce.” (Anggrek) The participant indicated that she had difficult in memorizing because before entering Junior High School, she did not have basic English ability in learning English. Many students forgot the lesson, so it affected to the students in junior high school. There were the factors that caused some problems in learning English. Lack of resources and facilities The most important emerging theme was the lack of resources and facilities. To support learning process, a school must be provided with complete facilities and resources to make ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 16 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi students easy in learning. However, this school had lack of resources and facilities, because it might be still limited facilities from their foundation. “The school did not prepare Language Laboratory, so it causes difficult to listening in English, sometime the teacher diction till five times because I and my friend difficult to understand what teacher said.” (Melati) “The textbook was blurring, so the words did not look clearly.” (Melati) “There was no library, and uncompleted English books to students.” (Tulip) From these statements, the students stated that the condition of school’s facilities was inadequate to support the students’ learning process. This school only provided worksheet. In addition, there were no books in the library and language laboratory to support English. And also there were no facilities like tape recorder, pictures related to the lesson, and games such as scrabble to make students interested in the lesson. Inadequate time One of the important things and emerging theme was inadequate time. Time allocation can affect in learning process, to make students focus on the material, students need efficient time to receive the material. “Study English a week just four hours, two meeting, every meeting two hours, sometime I did not understand what teacher explain, next week entering another lesson, while I did not understand the lesson last week.” (Anggrek) From this statement, the student had problem in time allocation. Because in her opinion the time was inadequate, she learned different topic every week, while she did not understand the topic last week. Peer influences According to Abrar, Mukminin, Habibi, Asyrafi, Makmur, and Marzulina (2018) claim that the external factors, such as classroom environment, and negative comments from teachers and peers, may hinder the learners from actively engaging, and eventually make it difficult to speak. It is in line with the findings of the study that indicate that friends are also influential which may cause difficulties the learning process, because in this study “the friends” did not support each other. The researchers found two participants expressed by the participants below, “The words in the text were so difficult, when I read it and I was wrong, the other friends laugh at me.” (Budi) “I cannot pronounce when I want to speak English, because there were so many consonant words, and the other friend was so noisy, they did not motivate to study English.” (Melati) From this statement, the student had problem in their friends. Because their friends did not motivate to study, so they disturb the others. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 17 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Discussion The purposes of the study were to investigate students’ demotivating factor of English language learning and describe how the students solve the problems in learning English at one madrasah tsanawiah in Jambi city. The perspective of each students was collected to gain in- depth information about their problems in learning English. Dimyati and Mudjiono (2009) claimed that problems in learning can be caused by both internal and external factors. The findings of the study indicated that there were several important themes with their sub-themes, including problems related to listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills, underprivileged ability, lack of resources and facilities, inadequate time, peer influences and solution to the problems. Based on the findings of the study, the first theme was related to the problems with listening skill. The problems that students faced were lack of facilities of their school because students only learnt listening by dialogue that spoken by English teacher. Students had difficulty in understanding the meaning of the language itself when the teacher pronounced the text or dialogue. Students got difficulties to hear what teacher said because they do not know what the teacher said and talked about. The finding of these problems in listening skill was consistent with the finding of previous studies by Handayani (2009) and Nurhanifah and Widiyawati (2011). It showed in their research, one of the problems that students faced related to the problems in understanding the meaning of what is being spoken by the speaker and also problems related to the teacher’s speed of speech. The second theme was related to the problems with speaking skill, most of students had problems in self confidence. This condition greatly hindered the students in learning speaking since learning this language skill. Self confidence was indeed important. When the students learn to speak, they have to believe themselves that they can speak. In this study, the problems that students faced were students lack of pronunciation and vocabulary, students had difficulty when they arranged the words to make dialogues and also the students hard to pronounce the word when they spoke. It also showed from the previous study by Handayani (2009) and Nurhanifah and Widiyawati (2011). They faced the same problem with this research in speaking related to students’ vocabulary and pronunciation. It was overlapped with Handayani (2009) and Nurhanifah and Widiyawati’s (2011) list that the students did not understand what the teacher speak in English language. The third theme showed about problem related to learning reading. The problem was students did not know how to read the text. It was related to the pronunciation. Students had lack of reading comprehension. The finding of these problems was consistent with the finding of previous study by Ahmad,Ahmed, Bukhairi, and Hukhairi (2011) which showed that the factor that caused problems in reading skill was students lack of reading comprehension. The last theme was student’s problems in writing skill related to the vocabulary and grammar. Student had lack of vocabulary and grammar, so it made students difficult to write have not dictionary. So, “I didn’t know what I should write. I asked to the teacher what the meaning of the word and I write the meaning of the word in my book”. The finding of these problems was showed from the previous study by Nurhanifah and Widiyawati (2011). The fifth theme showed about how the students overcome the problems. The students had solutions when they faced the problems. The students always asked the teacher when they faced the problems and then they wrote the important point from teacher’s explanation, and sometimes they open dictionary. Finding of these solutions was consistent with the finding of previous studies by Handayani, (2009) and Nurhanifah and Widiyawati (2011). They found some ways to overcome the problems, the solutions they found in their research: asking the teacher when the students did not understand with the topic, the meaning of difficult words, or the English word or the pronunciation of the word they wanted to write or say. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 18 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi The other common problems that students faced were underprivileged ability, lack of resources and facilities, inadequate time, and peer influences. The students never took English course before entering junior high school and now they did not take English course too because they live in dormitory. Students also forget about the lesson that they were learning in elementary school, it made student did not have ability in learning English. Then peer influences, some of students want to study, but the other did not, they made noisy class, so the other felt disturb, and when their friend speak wrong or read wrong, they laugh at them. Problems in learning can be caused by both internal and external factors. Internal factors include attitude toward learning, motivation, concentration, underprivileged ability, intelligence and study habit, while external factors include the teachers, teaching and learning facilities, peer influences, and curriculum (Dimyati & Mudjiono,2009). In this school, the student had limited resources and facilities. They only learnt based on the worksheet, and sometimes the worksheet was blurring. There were no English books in library and there were no more facilities to make the students interested in the lesson. five factors were extracted: (a) course books, (b) inadequate school facilities, (c) test scores, (d) non communicative methods, and (e) teachers’ competence and teaching styles. The finding of these problems was showed from the previous study by Dörnyei (2001a). The last was time allocation. The student did not feel confident because they learnt English after sport class and in the last sudy hour. It was a bad condition for their teacher to convey the lesson because students were not able to concentrate and focus on the lesson. Furthermore, this research indicated that most of students had lack ability of all element of language and had low basic English ability. The problems of the students were able to minimize by some solutions from the students and by helping from the teachers. The solutions that can be done by students to overcome those problems were by asking the teachers, writing the important point and opening dictionary. Conclusion The purpose of the research was to investigate about students’ demotivating factors in English language learning. It was also aimed at finding out the solution to overcome the problems. The result indicated the main problems that students faced in learning English. There were problems related to listening skill, problems related to speaking skill, problems related reading skill, and problems related to writing skill. The result of the interview showed the solutions to the problems, and there were four additional problems that students faced namely underprivileged ability, lack of resources and facilities, inadequate time, and peer influences. In this research, the participants provide their solution to overcome the problems that they got while learning English such as asking the English teachers, writing the important point and opening dictionary. In the light of the result, students in one madrasah tsanawiah found many problems while learning English. We suggests some recommendation for the students, teacher and for the school. Students should be well prepared about their needs such as dictionary and also students must study the previous lessons at dormitory with their friends that have high level in English, or making English community in dormitory. Then, for the teachers, they have to teach with games and creative activities, such as guessing game, simple sing a song in English, learning with picture, linking verb, playing interesting card in English and create good atmosphere in the class when learning English is processing like showing good personality of the teacher. Next, the school should provide some interesting textbooks such as short story with popular cartoon, making extracurricular after school to increase students ability and making group lowest score with highest score. For further researchers who are interested in conducting the other research but in the same scope, it will be better to gain deep information about students’ problems in ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 19 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi learning English in larger sample and some schools. Finally, research on demotivation could also be extended outside the school, considering that language learning takes place elsewhere too. References Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., Makmur, M., & Marzulina, L. (2018). “If our English isn’t a language, what is it?” Indonesian EFL student teachers’ challenges speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9. Abrar, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). International graduate classroom discussion engagement, challenges, and solving-strategies: Stories from Indonesian students in a United Kingdom university. Asia-Pacific Collaborative education Journal, 12(1), 5-20. Ahmad, N., Ahmed, S., Bukhari, M. A., & Hukhari, T. A. (2011). The nature of difficulties in learning english by the students at secondary school level in Pakistan. Retrieved from http://iiste.org/ Arai, K. (2004). What ‘demotivates’ language learners?: Qualitative study on demotivational factors and learners’ reactions. Bulletin of Toyo Gakuen University, 12, 39-47. Blanchard, C. M. (2006). CRS Report RS21654 at the second session of the 109 th Congress: Islamic religious schools, madrasas Background. Congressional Research Service, the library of Congress. Blauensteiner, K. (2000). Paying real attention to students. New York: Pilgrims. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Chambers, G. N. (1993). Talking the, de, out of Demotivation. Language Learning journal, 7(13). Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education 44, 292-306. Colak, A. (2008). Attitudes, motivation, and study habits of English language learners. Middle East Technical University. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, W. L. (1997). Validity (verification) in qualitative research: Perspective, terms, procedures, and methodologies. (Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Psychology). University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Dimyati & Mudjiono. (2009). Belajar dan pembelajaran. Jakarta, Indonesia: Rineka Cipta Stake. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, England: Longman. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Erlina, D., Marzulina, L., Pitaloka, N.L., Astrid, A., Fikri Yansyah, F., & Mukminin, A. (2018). Research on educational media: Balancing between local and target language cultures in English electronic textbooks. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 111- 119. Falout, J., & Maruyama, M. (2004). A comparative study of proficiency and learner demotivation. The Language Teacher, 28, 3-9. Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. (1992). Students’ perception of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly, 40, 239-52. Habibi, A., Sofwan, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). English teaching implementation in Indonesian pesantrens: Teachers’demotivation factors. Indonesian Journal of English Teaching, 5(2), 199- 213. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 http://iiste.org/ ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 20 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Handayani, D. N.(2009). The problems of learning English at smpn 9 Malang. (Unpublish thesis). State University Malang: Indonesia. Haryanto, E., & Mukminin, A. (2012). The global, the national and the local goals: English language policy implementation in an Indonesian International Standard School. Excellence in Higher Education Journal, 3(2), 69-78. Ikeno, O. (2002). Motivating and demotivating factors in foreign language learning: A preliminary investigation. Ehime University Journal of English Education Research, 2, 1-19. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston: Sage Publications. Lichtman, M. (2nd Eds.). (2010). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. California, US: Sage Publications. Lincolin, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE Publications. Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta- analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and Associates. Language Learning, 53(1), 123-163. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. San Francisco, CA: Sage Publications. Mukminin, A., Ali, Rd. M., & Fadloan, M.J. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’ experiences in english academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher training program. The Qualitative Report, 20 (9), 1394-1407. Mukminin, A., Noprival, Masbirorotni, Sutarno, Arif, N., & Maimunah. (2015). EFL Speaking anxiety among senior high school students and policy recommendations. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(3), 217-225. Mukminin, A., Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, S.R. (2015). Stories from the frontlines: In-service teachers’ demotivating factors and policy recommendations. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 1(2), 40‐52. DOI: 10.17985/ijare.56085. Mukminin, A., Kamil, D., Muazza, M., & Haryanto, E. (2017). Why teacher education? Documenting undocumented female student teachers’ motives in Indonesia: A case study. The Qualitative Report (USA), 22(1), 309-326. Mukminin, A., Rohayati, T., Putra, H. A., Habibi, A., & Aina, M. (2017). The Long Walk to Quality Teacher Education in Indonesia: Student Teachers’ Motives to become a Teacher and Policy Implications. Elementary Education Online,16(1), 35-59. Mukminin, A., & McMahon, B.J. (2013). International Graduate Students’ Cross-Cultural Academic Engagement: Stories of Indonesian Doctoral Students on American Campus. The Qualitative Report, 18 (69), 1-19. Mukminin, A., Haryanto, E., Makmur, Failasofah, Fajaryani, N., Thabran, Y., & Suyadi. (2013). The achievement ideology and top-down national standardized exam policy in Indonesia: Voices from local English teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 19-38. Mukminin, A., Fridiyanto, & Hadiyanto. (2013). Beyond the classroom: Religious stressors and adjustment among Indonesian muslim graduate students in an American graduate school. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 4 (2), 33-45. Mukminin, A. (2012a). From east to west: A phenomenological study of Indonesian graduate students' experiences on the acculturation process at an American public research university (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 21 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Mukminin. A. (2012b). Acculturative experiences among Indonesian graduate students in US higher education: Academic shock, adjustment, crisis, and resolution. Excellence in Higher Education Journal, 3(1), 14-36. Nurhanifah & Widayati. (2011). The problems of second grade students of SMPN 4 Malang in learning English and the efforts made to overcome them. Retrieved from (http://karya- ilmiah.ujm.at.id/index.php/sastra-inggris/articls/view/19346). Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Perry, L. Jr. (2005). Research in applied linguistics: Becoming a discerning consumer. New York, NY: Routledge. Sakai, H., & Kikuchi, K. (2009). An analysis of demotivation in the EFL classroom. System, 37, 57-69. Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: perspective, paradigm and possibility. New York, NY: Macmillan. Stake, R. E. (1997). Case study methods in educational research. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Takase, A. (2004). Investigating students’ reading motivation through interviews. Forum for foreign language education, 3. Institute of Foreign Language Education and Research, Kansai University, Osaka: Naniwa Press. Underwood, M. (1989). Teaching listening. New York, NY: Longman. Yusuf, Q., Yusuf, Y., Yusuf, B., & Nadya, A. (2017). Skimming and scanning techniques to assist EFL students in understanding English reading texts. Indonesian Research Journal in Education |IRJE|, 1(1), 43-57. Zuhdi, M. (2006). Modernization of Indonesian Islamic schools’ curricula, 1945–2003. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4-5), 415-427. http://karya-ilmiah.ujm.at.id/index.php/sastra-inggris/articls/view/19346 http://karya-ilmiah.ujm.at.id/index.php/sastra-inggris/articls/view/19346 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 22 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Learning to listen: Listening Strategies and Listening Comprehension of Islamic Senior High School Students Desma Yulisa State Islamic University of Raden Fatah, Palembang, South Sumatra desmayulisa54@gmail.com Abstract The purpose of this research was to identify the correlation and the influence between listening strategies and listening comprehension. The eleventh grade students were selected as participants of this study. The instruments used in this research were listening strategies questionaire adapted from Lee (1997) and modified by Ho (2006) (as cited Golchi, 2012), and listening comprehension test conducted to measure students’ listening comprehension. Pearson product moment, regression analysis, R-square were used to find out the correlation and the influence between variables. The result revealed that there was a significant correlation between listening strategies and listening comprehension with r = .516. Besides, there was also a significant influence of listening strategies on listening comprehension with 26.6 %. This study could have implications for English language teachers, course designers, learners, and text book writers. Keywords: listening strategies, listening comprehension, Islamic senior high school students Manuscript submitted: September 3, 2017 Manuscript revised: January 2, 2018 Accepted for publication: March 15, 2018 Introduction It has been acknowledged that English has been used all over the world. It means that English is a means of communication that is used internationally by people to communicate with others to transfer ideas, thoughts, feelings, attitudes, or messages (Abrar & Mukminin, 2016; Azkiyah & Mukminin, 2017; Haryanto & Mukminin, 2012; Habibi, Sofwan, & Mukminin, 2016; Makmur, Mukminin, Ismiyanti, & Verawati, 2016; Mukminin, Masbirorotni, Noprival, Sutarno, Arif, & Maimunah, 2015; Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015; Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015). Nowadays, people need to be able to use English in order to challenge globalization. It is in line with what Crystal (2003) said that English is as a global language (as cited in Ariesca & Marzulina, 2016) which is widely used in various countries and in various fields. It can be at least understood almost everywhere among scholars and educated people. English First [EF] (2011) reported that English proficiency of Indonesia positioned in the 34 from 44 countries which is English is not as main language. It is in line with what Komaria (1998) states that the 1989 Law on the Indonesian educational system gives English a place as the first foreign language among other foreign languages used in Indonesia such as German, Arabic, or Japanese (Abrar, Mukminin, Habibi, Asyrafi, Makmur, & Marzulina, 2018). In English, there are four basic language skills that teachers have to teach and students have to learn; they are reading, listening, writing, and speaking (Erlina, Marzulina, Pitaloka, mailto:desmayulisa54@gmail.com ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 23 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Astrid, Fikri Yansyah, & Mukminin, 2018; Habibi, Mukminin, Sofwan, & Sulistiyo, 2017; Hadiyanto, Mukminin, Failasofah, Arif, Fajaryani, & Habibi, 2017). One of the essential skills is listening. Brown (2004) states “listening performance is the invisible, inaudible process of internalizing meaning from the auditory signals being transmitted to the ear and brain” (p. 118). Mastering listening comprehension is the first step towards fully acquiring the English language (Liu, 2008). When people communicate with others, people spend the largest proposition of time, about 45% in listening, but only 30 % in speaking, 16 % in reading, and 9 % in writing (Huy, 2015). Golchi (2012) reveals “poor listening ability results from many factors, such as insufficient emphasis on listening, immature teaching methodologies, ineffective listening strategies, and students’ lack of vocabulary” (p. 115). Although listening is one of the difficult aspects to mastered, but by using appropriate strategies in learning, it will be easier. Listening strategies as well as linguistic knowledge are necessary to successful listening comprehension. O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) state that learning strategies were categorized as meta-cognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective strategies are steps taken to contribute learners to acquire, store, retrieve, and use information. Furthermore, Gilakjani and Sabouri (2016) suggested that teachers should encourage their students to develop listening strategies. Predicting, asking for clarification, and using non-verbal cues are some examples of these strategies that improve learners’ listening comprehension ability. Furthermore, after having informal interview to the teacher and some students, it revealed that listening is the hardest among others skill to be acquired. They said that many difficulties came up when practicing listening such as the audio speed which is too fast, different context in daily life, different accent, meaningless of words and lack of strategies. These factors made listening skill complicated. In addition, based on my observation toward the learning facilities, sometimes, teachers brought speaker to conduct listening lesson. However, the quality of speaker was unstandard and the class was to large. Sometimes, the electricity did not support the listening processes as well. The teachers also expressed that students had not had known about any strategies applied in listening class, and teacher also did not know how to use and apply the listening strategies. Some researchers have previously explored those related variables; students listening strategies and listening comprehensio, but it is still confront found upon the results. Golchi (2012) found negative correlation between listening strategy used and the students’ listening comprehension. In contrast, Eslakonha and Amiri (2014) revealed that there was a statistically significant relationship between the listening strategies (meta-cognitive, cognitive and, socio-affective) and their listening comprehension ability. Based on the explanation above, so it is logical to pay more attention on listening comprehension and its strategies in EFL educational program and SLA research. Therefore, this study was conducted in order to find out whether or not there is a significant correlation between listening strategies and listening comprehension of the eleventh grade Islamic Senior High School Students of Babussalam Payaraman. In addition, it was also conducted to know if listening strategies influenced listening comprehension achievement of the eleventh grade students at the same school. Literature Review Ho (2006) states that “Listening strategies refer to skills or methods for listeners to directly or indirectly achieve the purpose of listening comprehension of the spoken input” (p.25). O’malley and Chamot’s (1990) expressed that there are three types of strategies in listening comprehension; they are cognitive, metacognitive, and socio-affective. First is Cognitive Strategy. Richard (2008) defines, “cognitive strategy is Mental activities related to comprehending and storing input in working memory or long-term memory for later retrieval” (as cited in Huy, 2015, ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 24 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi p. 11). Huy (2015) defines, “cognitive strategies were used to help students to obtain knowledge, understand of linguistic system, for example, learners could understand the meaning of words from contexts, link new information with existing schema” (p. 25). Next is Meta-Cognitive Strategy. Ratebi (2013) defines, “metacognitive learning strategies are those which involve knowing about learning and controlling learning through planning, monitoring and evaluating the learning activity” (p. 141). The third is Socio-Affective Strategy. It was combined from socio and affective. “Affective strategies could help listeners handle their feelings, emotions, motivation or attitudes in learning listening skills” (Huy, 2015, p. 26). In addition, Gonen (2009) explains “social- affective dimension of listening strategies include individual or group activities such as cooperation, recasting and clarification of meaning (p. 45). Afshar and Hamzavi (2014) state “Listening comprehension is regarded as a multifaceted active process which is affected by a multitude of factors including differentiating sounds, recognizing vocabulary and grammatical structure, understanding stress and intonation and relating it to the given context” (p. 243). Methodology Research design In conducting this research, correlational research with the explanatory design was used to find out the correlation between variables and explain and interpret the appeared results. The procedures were, first; the student’s listening strategy was identified by using questionnaire. Second; by using listening test, the student’s listening comprehension was obtained. Then the correlation and the influence between variables were analyzed through Statistical Package for Social and Science (SPSS) 21.00 based on the results of the questionnaires and listening test. Last, explanation and interpretation of the results were discussed. Research site, sampling, and participants According to Creswell (2005), “population is a group of individuals who have the same characteristic” (p. 145). In addition, Fraenkel and Wallen (1990, p. 68) stated that population is the group of interest to the researcher, the group to whom the researcher would like to generalize the results of the study (as cited in Saputra & Marzulina, 2015, p.7). The population of this study is all the active Islamic Senior High School Students of Babussalam Payaraman in the academic year 2016-2017, which consisted of three classes. The total population of this study was 68 students. The sample of this study was taken by using purposive sampling method. “Purposive sampling (judgmental sampling) is used in both qualitative and quantitative research” (Johnson & Christensen, 2012, p. 235). Creswell (2005) adds “in this method, the researchers select individuals and sites to learn and understand about the topic whether they are information rich” (p. 204). Moreover, Johnson and Christensen (2012) explain, “in purposive sampling, the researcher specifies the characteristics of a population of interest and then tries to locate individuals who have those characteristics” (p. 204). In this research, the eleventh grade students were chosen as population because the classes described the characteristics which researcher needed to study. Students’ listening strategies among three classes varied and the ability of their listening comprehension was different each other and they had experienced a lot in learning listening skill based on schools’ curriculum. Besides, there was no research related to listening strategies conducted in this school before. According to Creswell (2012), “at least 30 participants for a correlational study that relates variables” (p. 146). Meanwhile, According to Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2012), “for correlational studies, a sample of at least 50 is deemed necessary to establish the existence of a relationship” (p.103). So the sample of this research was all active students in the academic year 2016-2017 which consisted of 68 students from 3 classes. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/group.html http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/individual.html ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 25 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Data collection There were two kinds of instrument used to collect the data; listening strategies questionnaire and listening test. To obtain the information about students’ listening Strategies, questionnaire developed by Lee (1997) and modified by Ho (2006) (as cited Golchi, 2012) was obtained. There were 18 items in the questionnaire consisting of types of listening strategy. The classification of each types are cognitive (6 items), metacognitive (6 items), and socio-affective (6 items). The questionnaire has Likert Scale (never, seldom, sometime, often, and always) with the score 1 until 5. The questions were responded by students in about 20 minutes. To obtain the students’ listening comprehension, listening test was taken from TOEFL Junior. It is a standard test which is an objective and reliable measure of English communication skill. This kind of test measures the English proficiency of students that age 11+ years old. However, this test may be appropriate for other students. The appropriateness is based on the English-language proficiency of the students (TOEFL Junior Handbook, 2015). It consists of 42 items in multiple choice forms. The time for the test administration was 40 minutes. TOEFL Junior test scores were determined by the number of questions students has answered correctly. There is no penalty for wrong answers. The number of correct responses on listening section was scored by using schools’ scoring system. The correct answers was be given score 1 (one), other ways incorrect is 0 (zero). Data analysis In analyzing the data, there were some analyses related to research problems in this research. The data analyses in this research were questionnaires’ analysis, listening tests’ analysis, correlation’s analysis by using Pearson Product Moment to find out the correlation between variable and the last, regression analysis by using regression analysis was used to achieve the influence related. In analyzing the questionnaire from listening strategies, there are three kinds categories of listening strategy, they are cognitive, metacognitive and socio affective strategies. So those strategies were described in term of the descriptive statistics. In analyzing listening test, there are five categories in listening test, they are excellent, very good, good, fair and poor level. So those levels were described in term of the descriptive statistics. As the matter of fact, it was essential to do pre-requisite test since the study was in the notion of parametric statistics, correlation and regression. Thus, before analyzing the data, I tried to find out whether the data distribution from each variable was normal and linear or not. Normality test was used to determine whether sample data drawn from a normally distributed population or not. It was conducted due to many parametric statistical methods, including Pearson correlation test and regression test. Therefore, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test by using SPSS 21 was applied. The linearity test was conducted in order to recognize whether the data between the variables were linear or not. Test for linearity was conducted in order to recognize whether the data of the variables was linear or not. Next, correlations’ analysis was applied after analyzing the data from questionnaire, and student’s listening test. In order to find out the correlation between students’ listening strategies as a whole and their listening comprehension, Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used. Since there was a significant correlation between variables, it was continued to find out the influence between two variables. All calculation was done by using the Statistical Package for Social and Science (SPSS) 21 st version computer program Findings and Discussion Listening strategies and listening comprehension Sixty-eight students participated in this study. The descriptive statistical analysis of listening strategies questionnaires for the participants indicated that the maximum score was 85, and the ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 26 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi lowest score was 21. The mean of the listening strategies was 64.51 and the standard deviation was 1.30. The range was 64. It revealed that from the questionnaire, the three category of listening strategies were all perceived by the students with different numbers; “metacognitive” as the least perceived level and “socio affective” as the most perceived one. There were 14 students who have cognitive listening strategies, 10 students have metacognitive, and 44 students have socio affective of listening strategies. The details are as follow: Table 1. Distribution of students’ listening strategies No Categorize Number of Categories Percentage 1 Cognitive 14 20.5 % 2 Metacognitive 10 14.7 % 3 Socio affective 44 64.7 % Total 68 100% The descriptive statistical analysis of listening for the participants indicated that the maximum score was 38, and the lowest score was 5. The mean of the listening scores for the participants was 16.82, and the standard deviation was 6.18. The range was 33. For each category, 1 student had excellent listening comprehension level. 2 students had very good listening comprehension. 19 students had average listening comprehension. 28 students had fair level and 36 students had poor listening comprehension. The details are as follow: Table 2. Distribution of students’ listening comprehension No. Categories Score Number of students Percentage 1 Excellent 100-81 1 1.47% 2 Very good 71-80 2 2.94% 3 Good 61-70 4 5.88% 4 Fair 51-60 7 10.29% 5 Poor <50 54 79.41% Total 68 100% The results of normality test and linearity test Normality test and linearity test were conducted prior to data analysis through SPSS 21st version for windows. As parametric statistics, in term of correlation and regression, total sampling technique were used in this research. The data are interpreted normal if p> 0,05. If p< 0.05. It means the data are not normal. Kolmogorov-Simonov was used to see the normality. The results of normality test indicated that the data from each variable were all normal and appropriate for data analysis with coefficients .065 for listening strategies and .073 for listening comprehension. For linearity test, deviation of linearity was obtained. If probability is more than .05, the two variables are linear. The results showed that, the deviation from linearity between listening strategies and listening comprehension was .139. To sum up all the data were linear for each correlation and regression. Correlation between listening strategies and students’ listening comprehension Based on Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, the result indicated that the pattern of correlation between listening and listening comprehension was positive. The correlation coefficient or the r-obtained (.516) was higher than r-table (.235). Then, the level of probability (p) significance (sig.2-tailed) was .000. It means that p (.000) was lower than .05. Thus, ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 27 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi there was a significant correlation between the students’ listening strategies and listening comprehension. The details are as follows: Table 3. Correlation between listening strategies and listening comprehension Correlations Listening Strategies Listening Comprehension Listening Strategies Pearson Correlation 1 .516 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 68 68 Listening Comprehension Pearson Correlation .516 ** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 68 68 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Influence of listening strategies on students’ listening comprehension In addition, since there was a significant correlation between the listening strategies and listening comprehension. It can be inferred that students’ listening strategies had significant influence on their listening comprehension. However, regression analysis was still used to find out if students’ listening strategies influenced their listening comprehension. The results indicated that the students’ listening strategies influenced listening comprehension significantly with sig. value (.00) was lower than probability (.05). Therefore, there was a significant influence between students’ listening strategies toward their listening comprehension of eleventh grade Islamic Senior High School Students of Babbussalam Payaraman. It means that there was a significant influence of listening strategies on listening comprehension. Table 4. The regression analysis of students’ listening strategies and listening comprehension Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) .991 3.302 .300 .765 Listening Strategies .245 .050 .516 4.889 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Listening Comprehension In addition, to know the percentage of listening strategies influenced on listening comprehension, R-Square was obtained. The result of the analysis revealed that the R Square (R 2 ) was .266. It means that students’ listening strategies gave significant effect in the level of 26.6 % toward listening comprehension, and 74.4% was unexplained factors value. The following Table 5 shows the result of Model Summary. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 28 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Table 5. Model summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .516 a .266 .255 5.34225 a. Predictors: (Constant), Listening Strategies Based on the result of Pearson product moment correlations, it was found that there was a positive and significant correlation between listening strategies and listening comprehension with (r- .516). Then, further analysis was conducted and it was also found that there was significant influence of listening strategies on listening comprehension with 26.6 %. It could be seen from the beginning of the first class that the participants had been involved in English listening practices or assignments, and they had been explored to English listening materials and interactions from printed textbooks, online media, and social networks. Some students stated that they liked to listen English songs which affected their comprehension. Equally important, some students had been joining English course and they had a lot of prior knowledge or experience about the topics given in the listening test. Furthermore, it might be because eleventh grade students were aware of their listening strategies. They tried to think about the ways in which they could plan, make decisions, monitor, and evaluate their listening. It means that students tried to cover their listening strategies in facing listening comprehension test. Bidadabi (2011) states, “students tend to employ repetition, resourcing, note-taking, deduction, translation, differencing, and elaboration on comprehending the listening texts” (p.28). Besides, he adds that learners cooperate, ask questions, and self-talk to achieve high listening score. It showed the importance of the listening stategies in the success of the listening comprehension. This study is in line with the finding of Amin, Aly, and Mohammed (2011) which showed a statistically significant positive correlation between students' strategies in listening and their listening comprehension. In other words, the findings revealed a positive correlation between students’ knowledge and use of listening strategies and their listening comprehension development. It can be concluded that the more effective strategy in listening, the better the result of listening comprehension will be. Bidadabi and Yamat (2011) had the same idea who revealed that there was significant correlation between listening strategies use and listening comprehension of Iranian EFL fresh university students. It made each strategies cognitive, metacognitive, and socio-affective give different contribution to listening performance. The students had many different kinds of strategy to face listening. They add that the use of listening strategies make them able to plan to use both top-down or bottom-up processing and employment-cognitive strategies such as thinking about the learning process, planning strategies for learning, paying attention to the main points in the listening task, and paying attention to details in the listening task. In short, the total contribution of students’ listening strategies and their listening comprehension showed significant correlated and influenced. However, the unexplained factors also had contribution on students’ listening comprehension. The findings of the study may have some pedagogical implications for foreign language teachers, course designers, parents, next researchers, and students. Conclusions Based on the findings and interpretations, some conclusions could be presented. First, all students’ listening strategies gave significant correlation to students listening comprehension with r = .516. It means it is in the level of average correlation. It could be proved that different level of listening-strategies gave significant effect to the students’ listening comprehension. Second, it can be concluded that students’ listening-strategies gave significant influence on students’ ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 29 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi performance in listening. It can be seen that student’s listening-strategies gave 26.6% contribution to their listening performance. It indicated that one of non-linguistic factors had essential contribution in improving students’ listening comprehension. This study may have some pedagogical implications for foreign language teachers, course designers, parents, next researchers, and students. References Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., Makmur, M., & Marzulina, L. (2018). “If our English isn’t a language, what is it?” Indonesian EFL student teachers’ challenges speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 Abrar, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). International graduate classroom discussion engagement, challenges, and solving-strategies: Stories from Indonesian students in a United Kingdom university. Asia-Pacific Collaborative education Journal, 12(1), 5-20. Azkiyah, S.N., & Mukminin, A. (2017). In search of teaching quality of student teachers: the case of one teacher education program in Indonesia. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 7(4), 105-124. Afshar, H. S., & Hamzavi, R. (2014). The relationship among reflective thinking, listening anxiety and listening comprehension of Iranian EFL learners: does proficiency make a difference? Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 2(3), 237-261. Amin, I. A. R., Aly, M. A. S., & Mohammed, A. M. (2011). A correlation study between EFL strategic listening and listening comprehension skills among secondary school students (Unpublished Masters’ thesis). Benha University, Benha, Egypt. Ariesca, A., & Marzulina, L. (2016). Teaching reading narrative text by using window notes strategy to the eighth grade students of SMP Muhammadiyah 4 Palembang. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 3(1), 23-32. http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/625 Bidabadi, F. S., & Yamat, H. (2011). The relationship between listening strategies used by Iranian EFL Freshman university students and their listening proficiency levels. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 26-32. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. London, England: Longman, Inc. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Erlina, D., Marzulina, L., Pitaloka, N.L., Astrid, A., Fikri Yansyah, F., & Mukminin, A. (2018). Research on educational media: Balancing between local and target language cultures in English electronic textbooks. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 111- 119. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gilakjani, A. P., & Sabouri, N. N. (2016). Learners’ listening comprehension difficulties in English language learning: A literature review. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 123-133. Golchi, M., M. (2012). Listening anxiety and its relationship with listening strategy use and listening comprehension among Iranian IELTS learners. International Journal of English Linguistic, 2(4), 115-128. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/625 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 30 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Gonen, M. (2009). The relationship between fl listening anxiety and fl listening strategies: the case of Turkish Efl learners. International Conference on Educational Technologies. Habibi, A., Sofwan, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). English teaching implementation in Indonesian pesantrens: teachers’demotivation factors. Indonesian Journal of English Teaching, 5(2), 199- 213. Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., Sofwan, M., & Sulistiyo, U. (2017). Implementation of classroom management by English teachers at high schools in Jambi, Indonesia. Studies in English Language and Education, 4(2), 172-189. Hadiyanto, Mukminin, A., Failasofah, Arif, N., Fajaryani, N., & Habibi, A. (2017). In search of quality student teachers in a digital era: Reframing the practices of soft skills in teacher education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 71-79. Haryanto, E., & Mukminin, A. (2012). The Global, the National and the Local goals: English Language Policy Implementation in an Indonesian International Standard School. Excellence in Higher Education Journal, 3(2), 69-78. Huy, L. H. T. (2015). An investigation into listening strategies of efl students within the high school setting. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(4), 21-34. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Liu, H. J. (2008). A study of the interrelationship between listening strategy use, listening proficiency levels, and learning style. ARECLS, 5(4), 84-104. Makmur, Ismiyati, Y., Mukminin, A., & Verawaty. (2016). In search of good student teachers in writing skill: The impact of different task variance on EFL writing proficiency. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 2 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 Mukminin, A., Ali, Rd. M., & Fadloan, M.J. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’ experiences in english academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher training program. The Qualitative Report, 20 (9), 1394-1407. Mukminin, A., Noprival, Masbirorotni, Sutarno, Arif, N., & Maimunah. (2015). EFL Speaking anxiety among senior high school students and policy recommendations. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(3), 217-225. Mukminin, A., Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, S.R. (2015). Stories from the frontlines: In-service teachers’ demotivating factors and policy recommendations. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 1(2), 40‐52. DOI: 10.17985/ijare.56085. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Retabi, Z., & Amirian, Z. (2013). Use of metacognitive strategies in listening comprehension by Iranian university students majoring in english: a comparison between high and low proficient listeners. Journal of Studies in Education, 1(3), 140-154. Saputra, H., & Marzulina, L. (2015). Teaching writing by using process genre approach to the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 22 Palembang. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 2(1), 1-12. http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/592 Zhang, Y. (2012). The impact of listening strategy on listening comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 625-629. http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/592 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 31 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Applying Language Learning Strategies in the Foreign Language Listening Comprehension: A Study of Islamic Senior High School Students Dian Pertiwi State Islamic University of Raden Fatah, Palembang, South Sumatra dianpertiwi6869@gmail.com Abstract The main purpose of the present study was to empirically investigate the possible correlation and the influence between students’ language learning strategies and listening comprehension. The population of this study was 138 eleventh grade students of I sl a m i c S e ni o r H i gh S c h o o l n u m b e r 2 Palembang. The sample was all of eleventh grade students in social class. The total number of the student was 138. Since 16 students were absent, so the sample consisted of 122 students. To collect the data in order to measure the students’ language learning strategies and listening comprehension, SILL (strategy inventory in learning language) and listening comprehension test from TOEFL Junior test were used in this study. The Pearson correlation was used in analyzing the data using SPSS 16. The result from questionnaire showed that most of the students used metacognitive strategies were in medium level and sometimes used language learning strategies. The result from listening comprehension test showed that most of the students were in very poor level. Furthermore, there was no significant correlation between the two variables that can be seen from the correlation coefficient or r-obtained (-.011) was lower than r-table (0.1779) then the level of probability or sig. value (.902) was higher than .05. From the result, it can be concluded that there was no significant correlation between language learning strategies and listening comprehension of eleventh grade students of Isl a m i c S en i o r H i g h S ch o o l n u m b e r 2 Palembang. Keywords: language learning strategies, listening comprehension Manuscript submitted: August 3, 2017 Manuscript revised: January 12, 2018 Accepted for publication: February 6, 2018 Introduction In this globalization era, everybody must have good communication ability to support their activity in daily life. It is in line with what Dewi (2015), Haryanto and Mukminin (2012), Mukminin, Ali, and Fadloan (2015), and Jackson and Stockwell (1996) stated that English was used in every corner of the world as a medium to interact among people from different cultural, ethnic, and social backgrounds (Abrar, Mukminin, Habibi, Asyrafi, Makmur, & Marzulina, 2018; Makmur, Mukminin, Ismiyanti, & Verawati, 2016; Mukminin, Masbirorotni, Noprival, Sutarno, Arif, & Maimunah, 2015; Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015). In addition, Bozorgian (2012) states “listening skill occupies almost 50% of daily communications” (p. 2). It means that listening skill has very high degree of influence and it is certain that listening occupied the mailto:dianpertiwi6869@gmail.com ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 32 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi main aspects of the effective communication for human in daily life. Listening is also very important for students in acquisition foreign language. According to Hamouda (2013), “ no one can deny the importance of listening skills in foreign language learning because the key to acquire a language is to receive language input” (p. 113). It is supported by De Chazal (2014) who states that students need good listening comprehension skill to interpret what people are saying in various academic situations. However, listening has not drawn much attention from both teachers and learners, they are generally less aware of its importance. Hamouda (2013) claims “in classrooms, teachers seem to test, not to teach listening and students seem to learn listening, not listening comprehension” (p. 115). Students usually listen to a text, respond to questions, and check their answers. Furthermore, students in Indonesia have unsatisfactory level in listening skill. It can be seen from a survey that has been conducted by EF Standard English Test (2015). Indonesian students are on average at B1 level (independent user) in English listening skill among 16 countries. From the fact, it shows that Indonesian students are not proficient yet in listening. Goh (2000) proposed ten common listening comprehension problems as follows; “1) quickly forget what is heard; 2) do not recognize words they know; 3) understand words but not intended the message; 4) neglect the next part when thinking about meaning; 5) unable to form a mental representation from words heard; 6) cannot chunk streams of speech; 7) miss the beginning of the texts; 8) concentrate too hard or unable to concentrate; 9) do not understand subsequent parts of input because of earlier problems; and 10) is confused about the key ideas in the message” (p. 59-60). Meanwhile, Malkawi (2010) mentions three problems of listening that senior high school students usually face, such as “ 1) speech speed; 2) limited knowledge of vocabulary and structure of sentences; a n d 3) limited knowledge of topic in question” (p. 773). G o h ( 2 0 0 0 ) a d d , “ It was because the students were not aware about the strategies and sometimes forgot to apply them while they were engaged in listening” (p. 143). He also explained that most of students did not know much about listening strategies. In learning language, learning strategies have become crucial part to help the students successful in acquiring the language (Abrar & Mukminin, 2016; Haryanto & Mukminin, 2012; Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015; Mukminin, Ali, & Fadloan, 2015). Pannak and Chiramanee (2011) states “one of the important factors contributing to successful language learning is language learning strategies” (p. 3). Becoming one of the factors that determine language learner success in acquiring language makes learning strategy very important for teachers and learners (Erlina, Marzulina, Pitaloka, Astrid, Fikri Yansyah, & Mukminin, 2018; Habibi, Sofwan, & Mukminin, 2016).). Theory about language learning strategies comes from Oxford (1990) as she emphasizes “the best language students have used strategy” (p. 1). Oxford (1990) divided language learning strategies into two major classes; direct and indirect. Direct strategy consists of three groups (memory, cognitive and compensation) and indirect consists of three groups (metacognitive, affective, and social). “Learning strategy makes learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situation” (Oxford, 1990, p. 8; Oxford, 2003, p. 274). It was also supported by many studies that the use of language learning strategy influenced the students’ proficiency in foreign language especially in English proficiency. One example is the study conducted by Ou-Chun (2011) who found that language learning strategies of EFL students had significance correlation with their English proficiency. It means that by using language learning strategies, it can help the students achieve their goal in acquisition English foreign language well. Language learning strategies is also an important part for senior high school students in learning language process in the classroom. To get their successful in acquisition foreign language, the students need to apply strategy in learning language. Lee (2010) states that learners use learning strategies in order to learn something more successfully. By applying ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 33 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi learning strategy, it can make the students easy to understand the material quickly and make them more efficient in learning foreign language. It is also supported by Suwanarak (2012) who declared that the use of language learning strategies is linked with an achievement in the second language classroom and helps students become independent learners. In association with students’ listening comprehension in English, language learning strategies have big influences on students listening comprehension performance. It is proven by Moghadam, Ghanizadeh, and Pazhouhesh (2016) who declared that students’ strategies in listening has a positive effect on their listening comprehension. “Successful listening can also be looked at in terms of the strategies the listener uses when listening” (Richard, 2008, p 11). From the evidence above, it can be concluded that language learning strategies influence students listening comprehension. It is important for teacher and students to know about it. Based on the informal interview with the teacher and the eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Palembang, many students said that listening was difficult for them because they did not know what the speaker were saying, the speed of the speaker was too fast, and they were also lack of vocabulary. Most of the students did not know about language learning strategies. Meanwhile, the teacher said she just knew what language learning strategies were but she did not know specifically about language learning strategies. She also added that she taught listening without knowing the students language learning strategies. Because of those reasons, the researcher wants to examine the correlation between language learning strategies and listening comprehension. The objectives of the study were: (1) to find out if there is significant correlation between language learning strategies and student’s listening comprehension of eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Palembang (2) to know if the language learning strategies influence students’ listening comprehension of eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Palembang. Literature Review Concept of language learning strategy There are so many theories about language learning strategies from scholars. Chamot and Kupper (1989) declare, “learning strategies are technique which students use to comprehend, store, and remember new information and skills” (p. 15-17). They classified into three types; metacognitive, cognitive or social and affective. Oxford (1990) emphasizes “the best language students have used strategy” (p. 1). Oxford (1990) divided language learning strategies into two major classes; direct and indirect. Direct strategy consists of three groups (memory, cognitive and compensation) and indirect consists of three groups (metacognitive, affective, and social). Learning strategy makes learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situation (Oxford, 1990, p. 8; Oxford, 2003, p. 274). Chamot (2005) also explained his new theory about language learning strategies. He defines learning strategies as procedures that facilitate a learning task. Strategies are most often conscious and goal-driven, especially in the beginning stages of tackling an unfamiliar language task. Hurd and Lewis (2008) states “more proficient learners also orchestrate strategy use more effectively, combining strategies into strategy clusters for complex tasks and making sure that any chosen strategy is appropriate at the time “ (p. 51). Less proficient L2 learners often use strategies in a desperate way, not knowing how to identify the needed strategies. From the theory above, it indicated that good language learners always use language learning strategy in the acquisition process of the foreign language. By understanding the language learning strategies and knowing how to choose the appropriate strategy needed by the students, will direct the students to get their target language. In other words, language learning strategy is one of the factors that determine students’ success in learning a language. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 34 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Classification of language learning strategies Oxford (1990) divided two major classes of learning strategy; direct and indirect. “The direct class is composed of three groups (memory, cognitive and compensation)” (Oxford, 1990, p.14). Memory strategies are for remembering and retrieving new information, for examples; remember acronyms, grouping the word (e.g., all noun or verbs), and image. Next is cognitive strategies for understanding and producing the language. Second, cognitive strategies enable learners to manipulate the language material in direct ways, e.g., through reasoning, analysis, note-taking, summarizing, and translating. The last is compensation strategies for using the language despite knowledge gaps, such as guessing wisely, using linguistics clue, using gestures, switching to the native language, and using a synonym or description. The second major class-indirect strategies, “ This class is made up of metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies” (Oxford, 1990, p. 15). First is metacognitive strategies for coordinating the learning process, such as planning, setting goals and objectives, monitoring errors, and evaluating progress. Then, affective strategies for regulating emotions, such as strategies including encouraging oneself through positive self-talk, rewarding yourself, talking with someone about your feelings learning the target language and so on. The last is social strategies for learning with others, such as asking questions, asking for clarification, asking for help, and talking with a native-speaking conversation partner. Concept of listening comprehension Listening is the ability to identify and understand what others are saying in various situation. Moghadam, Ghanizadeh, and Pazhouhesh (2016) states “people have to comprehend what their interlocutors say and respond to it. If they are able to listen effectively, then they will have a meaningful communication” (p. 11). To have good listening skills, students must be able to comprehend all of the aspects when listening. Golchi (2012) states “listening includes comprehension of meaning-bearing, words, phrases, clauses, sentences and connected discourse” (p. 115). The word comprehension is reflection of the knowledge and skills that students have to acquire in listening. That is the reason why listening comprehension is a complex process. There have been a large number of scholars that present about listening comprehension towards the concept. Liubinienė (2009) defines “listening comprehension is more than extracting meaning from incoming speech” (p. 89). It is a process of matching speech with the background knowledge, i.e. what the listeners have already know about the subject. Bđlokcuoğlu (2014) asserts “ listening comprehension is strongly believed to be a process of interaction between the listeners’ background knowledge and the expected knowledge in the spoken text, that is, listeners employ all relevant previously stored knowledge to comprehend the incoming input” (p.83). Meanwhile, Yousefinia (2012) states “listening comprehension means the process of understanding speech in a second or foreign language” (p. 4). It is the perception of information and stimuli received through the ears. It can be concluded that listening comprehension is the process of understanding of aural message from the speaker and match it to the listener knowledge. Importance of listening comprehension Many researchers believe that listening comprehension is crucial aspect in language acquisition since the last two decades. Moghadam et.al (2016) declared “in communicative approaches to language teaching, listening has been emphasized in all levels of language learning” (p. 11). Jones (2003) claims, “listening comprehension activities provide students with the aural component of the target language to help them better hear the intricate sounds, enunciations, and content and develop their abilities to communicate with others in a target language” (p. 41). In relation to English language, the students need good listening ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 35 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi comprehension ability to help them in the acquisition of the English language. Gilakjani and Ahmadi (2011) believe “ an emphasis on listening comprehension as well as the application of listening strategies will help students to decode English input and to achieve greater success in English learning” (p. 986). Methodology Research design In this study, I used a correlation research design. According to Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2012), “the correlation study mainly focuses on the possibility of relationships between only two or more variables investigated without any attempts to influence them” (p. 331). In this study, I used correlation research design to find out the correlation between two variables, explain, and inteprete the result that may appear. The procedures in this research are, first; I identified the students’ learning strategy by using questionnaire. Second, by using TOEFL junior listening test, I found out the students listening comprehension score. Third, I found the correlation between two variables through SPSS based on the results of the questionnaire and listening test, and the influence of the variable(s). Last, explanation and interpretation of the results were discussed. Research site, sampling, and participants Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2012) defines population as the group of interest to the researcher, the group to whom the researcher would like to generalize the result of the study. In addition, Fraenkel and Wallen (1990) stated that population is the group of interest to the researcher, the group to whom the researcher would like to generalize the results of the study. ( as cited in ( as cited in Saputra & Marzulina, 2015, p.5). Cresswell (2012) states “population is a group of individuals who have the same characteristic” (p. 142). The population of this study was all of the eleventh grade students of Isl a m i c Se n i o r H ig h Sc h o o l n u m be r 2 Palembang in academic year of 2016/2017. The population consisted of 6 classes. According to Cresswell (2012), “sample is a subgroup of the target population that the researcher plans to study for generalizing about the target population” (p. 142). He also said that the sample can be selected from individuals who are representative of the entire population. In this reserach, I used convenience sampling technique. The sample of this research were XI IIS 1, XI IIS 2, XI IIS 3, and XI IIS 4 classes. There were 138 students as sample. The researcher chose them as samples because they had equal background knowledge. In social class, many students did not know about language learning strategies and their learning strategy. They also had difficulties in learning listening. Data collection Questionnaire and listening test were used as the instruments which had been valid and reliable. SILL (strategy inventory in learning language) from Oxford (1990) version 7.0 was used to know students language learning strategies. According to Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995), “40-50 major studies, including a dozen dissertations and theses, have been done using the SILL involved 8000-8500 language learners” (p. 4). They also explained that the SILL appears to be the only language learning strategy instrument that has been extensively checked for reliability and validated in multiple ways. Fazeli (2011) found that the reliability score of SILL is 0.89. SILL questionnaire consisted 50 items and used likert scale 1-5. To avoid misunderstanding SILL questionnaire had been translated into Indonesian. The time to answer the questionnaire was 25 minutes. Listening comprehension test from TOEFL Junior standard test was used for testing students listening comprehension. TOEFL Junior ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 36 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi standard test had been used in more than 50 countries including Indonesia and the reliability coefficients of the listening comprehension test was .87. The listening test consisted of 42 multiple choices questions. The time to answer the questions was 40 minutes. Data analysis For analyzing the data in this research, there were four steps. First, after distributing the SILL questionnaire to the students, the student’s answers were calculated by using formula from Oxford (1990). The student’s total answer in each part of SILL was divided with the total statement in each part. The highest average score from all part of SILL indicated which strategy that the students tended to use most frequently. After that, all the sums from students answer in different parts of SILL were divided by fifty (÷50). The result average score described students’ frequency in using language learning strategies (LLS). The highest frequency level is 5.0 and the lowest is 1.0. Second, the students’ listening comprehension answers was calculated by u s i n g a scoring system from MAN 2 Palembang. Third, in order to find out the correlation between language learning strategies (LLS) and Listening Comprehension of the eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Palembang, Pearson Product Moment correlation Coefficient in SPSS 16 was used. The last, in order to know the contribution of language learning strategies to listening comprehension of the eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Palembang, regression analysis was applied in this study. Findings and Discussion Students’ language learning strategies and listening comprehension Since 16 students were absent, so the sample consisted of 122 students. The descriptive statistical analysis of LLS for the participants was described as follows. The maximum score was 4.3, and the lowest score was 1.7. The mean of the language learning strategies scores for the participants was 2.9 and the standard deviation was .50. Equally important, the questionnaire results showed the most dominant strategy that students used was metacognitive strategy (37.4%). In this research I also found that many students had more than one language learning strategies. The distributions of students’ language learning strategies can be seen in the table below: Table 1. Distributions of language learning strategies Category Frequency Percentages Memory strategy 10 7,2% Cognitive strategy 8 5,8% Compensation strategy 19 13,7% Metacognitive strategy 52 37,4% Affective strategy 14 10% Social strategy 36 25,9% Total 139 100% The descriptive statistics analysis of listening comprehension for the participants was described as follows. The maximum score was 59.5, and the lowest score was 7.1. The mean of the listening comprehension score for the participants was 31.7 and the standard deviation is 9.32. Then, the listening comprehension results showed that most of the students w e r e in very poor category. 113 students in were very poor category (93.6%), 7 students were in poor category (5.7%), and 2 students were in average category (1.7%). ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 37 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Table 2. Distributions of listening comprehension Number of Student Interval Category Percentages 0 86-100 Very good 0% 0 71-85 Good 0% 2 56-70 Average 1,7% 7 46-55 Poor 5,7% 113 0-45 Very poor 93,6% The results of normality test and linearity test The data interpreted normal if p>0,05. If p< 0,05. It means the data are not normal. Kolmogorov-smirnov was used to see the normality. The results of normality indicated that the data from each variable were all normal and appropriate for data analysis with coefficients .646 for language learning strategies and .562 for listening comprehension. For linearity test, deviation of linearity was obtained. If probability is more than .05, the two variables are liniear. The results showed that, the deviation from linerity between language learning strategies and listening comprehension was .348 and since it was higher than 0.05, it was considered linear. Correlation between students’ language learning strategies and listening comprehension Having analyzed the results of the questionnaire and students’ listening comprehension test, it was found that the students’ language learning strategies were not significantly correlated to their listening comprehension. The correlation coefficient or r- obtain (-.011) was lower than r-table (0.1779) then the level of probability or (p) (.902) was higher than .05. It means that ho is rejected and h1 is rejected. Since there was no significant correlation between two variables, it is not necessary to do regression analysis because language learning strategies did not influence students’ listening comprehension. Furthermore, the correlation analysis result showed as described in the following table. Table 3. Correlation between language learning strategies and listening comprehension language learning strategies listening comprehension language learning strategies Pearson Correlation 1 -.011 Sig. (2-tailed) .902 N 122 122 listening comprehension Pearson Correlation -.011 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .902 N 122 122 The insignificant correlation result probably occurred because some factors in each side of the variables. From the language learning strategies side, the result showed that many students had more than one learning strategy. It made them unable to use the strategy appropriately because they were not aware about the strategy and how to use it. Hismanoglu (2000) strongly stressed that using the same good language learning strategies does not guarantee that bad learners will also become successful in language learning since other factors ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 38 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi may also play role in success. Meanwhile, Oxford (1990, 12) states that strategies assessment and training might be necessary to help learners become more aware of the strategies they are using and evaluate the utility of those strategies. Additionally, the result showed that language learning strategies (LLS) was not the only and the most d o m i n a n t factor that affecting listening comprehension. The researcher assumed that there were some other factors affecting students listening comprehension. Based on the result of the informal observation when conducting the research, it could be seen that motivation was the most dominant since most of the students had low motivation during the test. Moreover, Bingol, Celik, Yildiz , and Mart (2014) states that “students’ motivation is one of the crucial factors that affects listening comprehension “ (p. 4). Another factor is experience in learning listening. Less experience in learning listening makes the students low in listening comprehension. Naning and Hayati (2011) explains “the different knowledge backgrounds of the students cause them to have different listening achievement too (p. 9). Also, s tudents’ vocabulary caused them to have different listening comprehension achievement. Other factors that should not be neglected are the teacher’ methodology in teaching listening, the equipment, and the students’ condition when joining the test. According to Ardila (2013), there are seven factors that affecting EFL learners’ listening skills, namely, learner’s motivation, paralinguistic features, vocabulary, concentration, teachers’ methodology, the use of material and the learner’s background. Norflee (2014) claims that there are also some factors such as listener’ factor, background knowledge, speaking style and visual input. In conclusion, this study failed in investigating the correlation and influence between language learning strategies (LLS) and listening comprehension of eleventh grade students of Isl a m i c S e n i o r Hi g h Sc h o o l n u m b e r 2 Palembang. However, almost all of eleventh grade students of Isl a m i c S e n i o r H i g h S c h o o l n um b e r 2 Palembang used learning strategy occasionally and metacognitive strategy was the most dominant strategy that they used in learning language. Furthermore, language learning strategies (LLS) is also applicable for four skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), it means that there is possibility that language learning strategies correlate with others language skill. Conclusions Based on the findings of the study, three conclusions are drawn. First, the results of the questionnaire showed that metacognitive strategy was the dominant language learning strategy that students used. The students were also in medium level and sometimes they used language learning strategies. Meanwhile, the results of the listening comprehension test showed that most of the students were in very poor level. Second, the students’ language learning strategies had no significant correlation to students’ listening comprehension. The finding showed that r-obtained (-.011) was lower than r-table (0.1779) then the level of probability (p) significance (sig.2-tailed) was .902 was higher than .05. It means there was no significant correlation between the students’ language learning strategies and listening comprehension of the eleventh grade students of Isl a m i c S e n i o r H ig h S c h o o l n u m be r 2 Palembang. Since there was no significant correlation between two variables, it is not necessary to do regression analysis. Some other factors may influence the result of this study, specfically; (1) many students used more than one learning strategies, were not aware about their strategy, and were confused on how to use it. As well, in answering the listening test, the students’ had low motivation, lack of experience in learning listening, lack of vocabulary, and unprepared condition when joining the test. Besides, the teacher‘s method in teaching listening and the ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 39 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi equipment that researcher used during listening test may also influence the result of this study. References Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., Makmur, M., & Marzulina, L. (2018). “If our English isn’t a language, what is it?” Indonesian EFL Student Teachers’ Challenges Speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9. Abrar, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). International graduate classroom discussion engagement, challenges, and solving-strategies: Stories from Indonesian students in a United Kingdom university. Asia-Pacific Collaborative education Journal, 12(1), 5-20. Ardila, M. A. C. (2013). Exploring factors affecting listening skills and their implications for the development of the communicative competence: A case study. Open. Writ. Doors. J, 10(2). Bđlokcuoğlu, H. (2014). A schematic approach to teaching listening comprehension. EUL Journal of Social Sciences (V:I) LAÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. Bingol, M. A., Celik, B., Yildiz, N., & Mart, C. T. (2014). Listening comprehension difficulties encountered by students in second language learning class. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(4). Bozorgian, H. (2012) Listening skill requires a further look into second/foreign language learning. ISRN Education, 2012 (2012). Retrivied from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/810129/. Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, (25), 112–130. Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language learning instruction. Interstate Research Associates,VA. Creswell, J, W. (2012). Educationa research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. De chazal, E. (2014). Effective listening is essential in an academic context. Retrivied from: https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/prepare-english-language- students-academic-listening. Educational Testing Service Team. (2012). Practice test for TOEFL Junior Standard ataest. New York, NY: Educational Testing Service. Educational Testing Service Team. (2015). Handbook for the TOEFL Junior Standard Test. New York, NY: Educational Testing Service. Erlina, D., Marzulina, L., Pitaloka, N.L., Astrid, A., Fikri Yansyah, F., & Mukminin, A. (2018). Research on educational media: Balancing between local and target language cultures in English electronic textbooks. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 111- 119. Fazeli, S. H. (2011) The relationship between the neuroticism trait and use of the English language learning strategies. International Journal of Linguistics, 3(1). Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (8th Eds.). (2012). How to evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gilakjani, A., P., & Ahmad, M., R. (2011). A study of factors affecting EFL learners' English listening comprehension and the strategies for improvement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 977-988. Goh, C. M. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55-75. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/810129/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/810129/ https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/prepare-english-language-students-academic-listening https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/prepare-english-language-students-academic-listening ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 40 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Golchi, M. M. (2012). Listening anxiety and its relationship with listening strategy use and listening comprehension among Iranian IELTS learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(4), 115-128. Habibi, A., Sofwan, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). English teaching implementation in Indonesian pesantrens: teachers’demotivation factors. Indonesian Journal of English Teaching, 5(2), 199- 213. Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., Sofwan, M., & Sulistiyo, U. (2017). Implementation of classroom management by English teachers at high schools in Jambi, Indonesia. Studies in English Language and Education, 4(2), 172-189. Hamouda, A. (2013). An investigation of listening comprehension problems encountered by Saudi students in the efl listening classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development 2(2), 2226-6348. Haryanto, E., & Mukminin, A. (2012). the global, the national and the local goals: English language policy implementation in an Indonesian international standard school. Excellence in Higher Education Journal, 3(2), 69-78. Hismanoglu, M. (2000). Language learning strategies in foreign language learning and teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(8). Retrivied from: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Hismanoglu- Strategies.html Hurd, S., & Lewia, T. (2008). Language learning strategies in independent settings. Bristol, UK: Cromwell Press Ltd. Jones, L. C. (2003). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition with multimedia annotations: The students’ voice. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 41-65. Lee, C. K. (2010). An overview of language learning strategies. Arecls, 7, 132-152. Liubinienė, V. (2009). Developing listening skills in CLIL. KALBŲ STUDIJOS, 15. Malkawi, A. H. (2010). Listening comprehension for tenth grade students in tabaria high school for girls. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 71-775. Makmur, Ismiyati, Y., Mukminin, A., & Verawaty. (2016). In search of good student teachers in writing skill: The impact of different task variance on EFL writing proficiency. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 2 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 Moghadam, M. B., Ghanizadeh, A., & Pazhouhesh, M. (2016). Scrutinizing listening strategies among Iranian EFL University students. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(3), 11-22. Mukminin, A., Ali, Rd. M., & Fadloan, M.J. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’ experiences in english academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher training program. The Qualitative Report, 20 (9), 1394-1407. Mukminin, A., Noprival, Masbirorotni, Sutarno, Arif, N., & Maimunah. (2015). EFL Speaking anxiety among senior high school students and policy recommendations. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(3), 217-225. Mukminin, A., Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, S.R. (2015). Stories from the frontlines: In-service teachers’ demotivating factors and policy recommendations. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 1(2), 40‐52. DOI: 10.17985/ijare.56085. Naning, Z. A, & Hayati, R. (2011). The correlation between learning style and listening achievement of English education study program students of Sriwijaya University. Jurnal Holistics, 3(5). Norfleet, M. (2016). Factors that affect listening comprehension. Retrivied from: http://education.seattlepi.com/factors-affect-listening-comprehension 3720 .html Ou-chun, O. (2011). Influence of English proficiency on postgraduate students’ use of language learning strategies. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(12). 766-772. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Hismanoglu-Strategies.html http://iteslj.org/Articles/Hismanoglu-Strategies.html http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 http://education.seattlepi.com/factors-affect-listening-comprehension%203720%20.html ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 41 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the esl/efl version of the strategy inventory for language learning (sill). Elsevier Science Ltd, 23(1), 1-23. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. IRAL, 41(2003), 271-278. Saputra, H., & Marzulina, L. (2015). Teaching Writing by Using Process Genre Approach to the Eighth Grade Students of SMP Negeri 22 Palembang. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 2(1), 1-12. http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/592 Pannak, O., & Chiramanee, T. (2011). Language learning strategies used by first year students at Thaksin University, Songkhla Campus, Thailand. The 3rd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences, 1-12. Richard, J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Suwanarak, K. (2012). English language learning belifes, learning strategies and achievement of masters students in Thailand. TESOL as a Global Trade Ethics, Equity and Ecology, 1-15. Yousefenia, D. (2012). The effect of self- regulated strategy development instruction on the listening performance of Iranian EFL learners. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Sheikhbahaee University, Isfahan, Iran. http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/592 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 42 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Islamic Senior High School Students’ Language Learning Strategies and their English Achievement Isti Qomariah An English Teacher at SDN 111 Palembang, South Sumatera Istiqomariah62@gmail.com Abstract This study investigated the correlation between language learning strategies and English achievement, and explored the influence of language learning strategies on English achievement of eleventh grade students’ of MAN 3 Palembang. A total of 141 eleventh grade students participated in this study. The questionnaire and test were used to collect the data. For this purpose, the language learning strategies (SILL) questionnaire developed by Oxford (1989) measured language learning strategies and TOEFL junior (2015) was used to know students’ English achievement. There were three levels from high to low based on the results of SILL questionnaire and five categories English achievement test. Descriptive stastistic, pearson product moment correlation and regression anlaysis were employed to analyze the data. Based on the data analysis, it was found that r (.665) > rtable (.165) with significant level which was lower than 0.05. Thus, it indicated that there was significant correlation between language learning strategies and English achievement. It was implied that good language learners caused good in English achievement. Keywords: language learning strategies, LLS, and English achievement Manuscript submitted: September 1, 2017 Manuscript revised: February 4, 2018 Accepted for publication: March 6, 2018 Introduction Language is the system of human communication which consists of the structured, arrangement of sound (or their written representation) into larger units. It is also used for communication. Without a language, it is difficult for people to communicate with others (Abrar & Mukminin, 2016; Haryanto & Mukminin, 2012). Thus, language is very fundamental for human life. Sharifian (2009) defines that English as an International Language refers to a paradigm for thinking, research and practice ( as cited in Saputra & Marzulina, 2015). According to Komaria, the 1989 law on the Indonesian educational system gives english a place as the first foreign language among other foreign languages used in indonesia such as German, Arabic, or Japanese (as cited in Abrar, Mukminin, Habibi, Asyrafi, Makmur, & Marzulina, 2018). English is a global language which can be used for communication with native-speakers and non-native- speakers in the worldwide, especially in the education section where all university students need English for their studies in order to search information and obtain knowledge (Haryanto & Mukminin, 2012; Habibi, Sofwan, & Mukminin, 2016; Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015). Souriyavongsa, Rany, Abidin, and Mei (2013) found that the problems in learning English are: (1) teacher’s competence, (2) students lack of English foundation background, (3) students mailto:Istiqomariah62@gmail.com ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 43 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi lack of confidence to use English because they are afraid of mistakes and shy feeling, (4) curriculum is inappropriate for helping students to improve their English proficiency, (5) students are not well-motivated, encouraged and gained learning strategy, (6) students do not practice speaking English with English native speakers, and (7) class environment. There are various ways to solve the problem in English achievement faced by the leaners (Makmur, Mukminin, Ismiyanti, & Verawati, 2016; Mukminin, Masbirorotni, Noprival, Sutarno, Arif, & Maimunah, 2015; Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015). Ihsan and Diem (1997) explain that the internal factor, learning style and learning strategy need to be considered when analyzing why English seems difficult to learn. Futhermore, according to Ewuni (2012), Hamid (2011) and Ketabi (2012), language learning strategies are the factor which can give contribution to students’ English achievement as well as influence for the success and failure of the learners’ English achievement. Oxford (1990) states that language learning strategies are important factors for students in order to improve active learning in classroom and self directed movement which is esential in developving communicative competence. Six basic types of language learning strategies (metacognitive, cognitive, memory, compensation, social and affective strategies) are classified by Oxford (1990). The students can apply them with different learning strategies in their learning to accomplish the objectives of the study. Those strategies applied by the student will dive from time to time based on the material, the subject, and their own conditions. Students may apply a number of language learning strategies. The strategies used will give different contributions to the students’ language learning achievement and their English achievement (Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015). Moreover, Ketabi (2012) point out that gathering information to see how the learners learn and what strategies they use will help teachers learn more about the language learners learning process. Additionally, Ketabi believes that educators’ knowledge about the way students apply the strategies and the type of strategies they use in their context and situation will help them manage their resources and decision making process. Cohen, (2005) reveals two major reasons of the importance of language learning strategies in language learning and teaching. The first reason is metacognitive, cognitive, social, and affective strategies in language learning can be identified. The result of the first reason leads to the second reason which is the effective strategy will lead less successful language learners to be better leaners. Dhanapala, Kagamiyama, and Hiroshima (2007) explain, “second language leaners in particular, who were well aware of their own learning process and of the strategies, assist them to achieve learning outcome” (p. 684). Therefore, language learning strategies give positive contributions to students’ English achievement. This study aimed at investigating the correlation between language learning strategies and English achievement of eleventh grade students of MAN 3 Palembang. Review of Literature The concept of language learning staretgies (LLS) Oxford (1990) states, “Learning strategies are steps taken by students to enchance their own learning” (p. 1). Research has repeatedly shown that the conscious, tailored use of such strategies are related to language achievement and English proficiency. Many researchers have suggested that the concious use of language learning strategies make good language learners (Niman, Frohlich, & Todesco, 1975; Wenden, 1985). Chamot and Kupper (1989) state that succesfull language learners tend to select strategies that work well together with the requirement of the language task. Learning strategies can also enable student to become more independent, autonomous, lifelong learners (Allwright, 1990). ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 44 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi The classification of language learning strategies (LLS) In this study I used Oxford classification. Oxford’s classification of language learning strategies give much attention to reseachers because Oxford has devised an instrument for assesing the frequency of use of language learning strategies. The six classification of language learning strategies proposed by Oxford (1990) which is included in two main classes are as follows: (1) Memory-related strategies help learners’ link one L2 item or concept with another but do not necessarily involve deep understanding. Various memory-related strategies enable learners to learn and retrieve information in an orderly string (e.g., acronyms), while other technique creates learning and tetrieval via sounds (e.g., rhyming), images (e.g., a mental picture of the word itself or the meaning of the word), a combination of sounds and images (e.g., the keyword method), body movement (e.g., total physcal response), mechanical means (e.g., flashcard) or location (e.g., on a page or blacboard). (2) Cognitive strategie, enable the learners to manipulate the language material in direct ways, e.g., through reasoning, analyzing, note-taking, summarizing, synthesizing, outlining, reorganizing information to develop stronger schemas (knowledge structure), practicing naturalistic settings, and practicing structures and sound formally. (3) Compensation strategies, enable learners to make up their missing knowledge in the process of comprehending or producing the target language, such as guessing wisely in listening and reading, using gestures, switching to the native language, and using a synonym or description in order to get the meaning across in speaking or writing. (4) Metcognitive strategies, are steps that learners take to manage or regulate their learning, such as planning and arranging for learning tasks, setting goals and objectives, monitoring the learning process for errors, and evaluating progress, e.g., identifying one’s own learning style preferences and needs, planning for an L2 and task, gathering and organizing materials, arranging a study space and schedule, monitoring mistakes, and evaluating task success and evaluating the success of any type of learning strategy. These are employed for managing the learning process overall. (5) Affective strategies, are strategies that help learners gain control over their emotions, attitudes, and motivation related to language learning. Such strategies include encouraging oneself through positive self-talk, talking with someone about your feelings learning the target language, etc. (6) Social strategies, help the learner work with others and understand the target culture as well as the language, e.g., asking questions to get verification, asking for clarification of a confusing point, asking for help in doing a language task, talking with a native-speaking conversation partner, and exploring cultural and social norms. English achievement Algarabel and Dasi (2001) state “achievement is the competence of a person in relation to a domain of knowledge” (p. 46). Achievement refers to the good result from learning. According to Brown (2007), “learning is acquiring or getting of knowledge of a subject or a skill by study, experience, or instruction” (p. 7). Brown (2007) explores the component of the definition of learning as follows; (1) learning is acquisition or “getting”, (2) learning is retention of information of skill, (3) retention implies storage systems, memory, and cognitive organization, (4) learning involves active, conscious focus on and acting upon events outside or inside the organism, (5) learning is relatively permanent but subject to forgetting, (6) learning involves some form of practice, perhaps reinforced practice and (7) learning is a change in behavior. In addition, English achievement has strong relation with academic achievement. Bala (2011) states “academic achievement has always been the center of educational research and despite varied statements about the aims of education, the academic development of the child continue to be the primary and most important goal of education” (p. 8). Hence, academic is also important purpose in education. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 45 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Factors affecting the achievement According to Fitriah (2009), there are factors that influence the achievement of student. Some factors that influence the student’s achievement are as follows: Intelligence Intelligence is regarded as a potential capacity. This potential capacity is probably a function of heredity, congenital development, and growth. The growth of intelligence toward the potential capacity may be impeded by environmental stresses and strains or may be accelerated by proper stimulation. It is important to keep in mind that intelligence is complex and that individuals have many kinds of abilities and strengths, not all of which are measured by traditional IQ tests. Many students whose academic performance has been weak have experienced considerable success in second or foreign language learning. Motivation Motivation is one of the most important variables in learning. A high degree of motivation engenders an active and aggressive attitude with regard to educational goals. Motivation is actually a cluster of factors that energize behavior and give it direction. Motivation involves the learner’s reasons for attempting to acquire the second language, but precisely what creates motivation is the crux of the matter. Physical conditions Physical condition is one of the important components of learning. Healthy five senses will support teaching learning process. Student’s health affects their sensory-motor functioning. Sometimes students with sight problem, hearing problem, malnutrition, and so on can influence student’s achievement. A student has headache, fever, stomachache, or some injury needs immediate consideration because it can disturb the instructional process. Environment condition Environment is part of instructional process because it can influence the students. A learner lives in a complex learning situation that may be divided into three parts: the social environment, the physical environment, and the cultural environment. Parts of the social world, the physical world, and the cultural world are selected to become stimuli to the learner. Educational environment is defined as the emotional, physical, and intellectual climate that is set up by the teacher and students to contribute to wholesome learning situation. It supports the instructional process. Educational milieus comprise of family (parent and sibling), school and community. Methodology Research design Correlational research was used in this research because I wanted to find out the correlation between language learning strategies based on Strategy Inventory Language Learning (SILL) by Oxford (1990) and English achievement based on TOEFL Junior to test eleventh grade students in MAN 3 Palembang. According to Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2012), “a correlational studies investigate the possibility of relationship between two variables, although investigation of more than two variables or common” (p. 331). The procedure was that, first; language learning strategies was identified by using questionnaire of SILL. Second, by using TOEFL Junior Test, the students’ English achievement was obtained. Then, the correlation between variables was analyzed through Statistical Package ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 46 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi for Social and Science (SPSS) based on the results of the questionnaire and test. Finally, I found the influence of language learning strategies to their English achievement. Research site, sampling, and participants Population is a group of individuals or item that share one or more characteristics from which data can be gathered and analyzed. Fraenkel and Wallen (1990) stated that population is the group of interest to the researcher, the group to whom the researcher would like to generalize the results of the study. (as cited in Saputra & Marzulina, 2015, p.5). According to Richards and Schmidt (2010), “population in statistics is any set of items, individuals, which share some common and observable characteristics and from which a sample can be taken” (p. 443). In addition, Creswell (2012) states “population is a group of individuals who have the same characteristic” (p. 142). The population of this study was eleventh grade students of MAN 3 Palembang in academic year 2016/2017. At this school, there were 9 classes of the eleventh grade. The total population of the study were 308 students. The sample of this study was taken by using purposive sampling method. Purposive sampling (judgmental sampling) according to Johnson & Christensen (2012) is used in both qualitative and quantitative research. Moreover, they add that in purposive sampling, the researcher specifies the characteristics of a population of interest and then tries to locate individuals who have those characteristics” (Johnson and Christensen (2012). It is a nonrandom sampling technique in which researcher solicits persons with specific characteristics to participate in a research study. The students who had the same charactristics in terms of their knowledge background were selected as the sample of the study. They were from the science class and social classes. Therefore the total number of the sample was 141 students. Data collection In this reseach, I gave the questionnaire of SILL and TOEFL test to the students. The questionnaire was used to collect the data and information from the respondents. The questionnaire was from Oxford (1989) version 7.0 of the SILL, designed for EFL/ESL leaners. The SILL used a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never or almost never true of me), 2 (generally or almost always true of me), 3 (somewhat true of me), 4 (generally truesof me), 5 (always or almost always true of me). The time to do the questionnaire was 25 minutes. The questionnaire was calculated by using formula from Oxford. According to Oxford (1990) “the overall average indicate how frequently the students use language learning strategy in general” (p. 300). The average for each part of the SILL indicated which strategy that the students tended to use most frequently. The questionnaire consisted of 50 statements about strategies convering six categories, each was represented by a number of items. The questionnaire was translated into Bahasa Indonesia in order to avoid the possibility of ambiguity in understanding the questionnaire. The test was taken from TOEFL Junior. TOEFL Junior Standard test is an objective and reliable measure of English communication skill. “The purpose of the TOEFL Junior test was to provide an objective measure of the degree to which students in the target population have attained proficiency in the academic and social English language skills representative of English- medium instructional environments” (Handbook for the TOEFL junior standard test, 2015, p. 2). The designers of the TOEFL Junior Standard test assert that the TOEFL Junior Standard test was an English-proficiency test that was not based on or limited to any specific curriculum. There were three section; listening, structure, and reading. It consists of 42 questions in each section. The time for administration the test was two hours. TOEFL Junior test score were determined by the number of questions a students had answered correctly. There was no penalty for wrong answers. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 47 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Data analysis The questionnaire of language learning strategies consisted of 50 items and the score value was from 1 (Never or almost never true of me) to 5 (Always or almost always true of me). The minimum score of each statement was 1 and maximum score was 5. The lowest total score of each SILL scale was 50 (in which the students got 1 for each statement) and the highest total score was 250 (in which the students got 5 for each statement), while the lowest total score of all the five scales was perception is the same as the other scales of perception. The students’ total answers in each part of SILL was divided with the total statement in each part. The highest average score from all part of SILL indicated with strategy that the students tend to use most frequently. After that, all the SUMS from students answers in different part of SILL was divided by (÷50). The result average score described students frequency in using language learning strategies (LLS) which were high, medium and low. The students’ English achievement was analyzed to determine the score of the students from TOEFL Junior test. There was no penalty for wrong answer. TOEFL Junior Standard Test scores are determined by the number of questions a student has answered correctly. The correct answer was score 1 and the incorrect answer was scored 0. The highest score would be 100 and the lowest would be 0. After, the score of TOEFL Junior Test had already been obtained. The result would be classified based on the classification that applied at MAN 3 Palembang. The categories of the result of the test were grouped into very good, good, average poor, and very poor. The score interval based on the score that applied at MAN 3 Palembang. Findings and Discussion Students’ language learning strategies and english achievement The total active students in the eleventh grade students of MAN 3 were 141 students. All of students participated in this study.The 50 items of SILL questionaire were used to investigate the participants’ language learning strategies. The SILL was rated by likert type. The desriptive statistical analysis of SILL for the participants was presented in this study. The maximum score was 4.10 and the lowest score was 1.70. The mean of the language learning strategies scores for the participants was 2.9844 and the standard deviation was.50061. Next, it revealed that from the questionaire, the six levels of language learning strategies were all perceived by the students with different numbers. The results showed that there was no student got score between 4.5-5.0 (0 %) in high language learning strategies category, 24 students got score between 3.5-4.4 (17.02%), 97 students got score between 2.5-3.4 (68.8 %) were in medium category, 20 students got score between 1.5-2.4 (14.18 %), and no student got score between 1.0-1.4 (0 %) in low category. In conclusion, it revealed that from the language learning strategies questionnaire, medium level was the most obtained by the students. The descriptive statistical analysis of English achievement for the participants was presented. The maximum score was 95, and the lowest score was 30 and the standard deviation was 12.025.The mean of the English achievement scores for the participants was 72.29. Then, it revealed that from the English achievement test, the five categories of English achievement were all obtained by the students with different numbers. The results showed that there 42 students got score between 80-100 (29.79 %) were in very good category, 50 students got score between 70-79(35.46 %) were in good category, 35 students got score between 60-69 (24.82 %) were in average category, 6 students got score between 50-59 (4.26 %) and 8 students got score between 0-49 (5.67 %) were in very poor category. In conclusion, it revealed that from English achievement test, good English achievement level was the most obtained by the students. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 48 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi The results of normality test and linearity test Normality test and linearity test were conducted prior to data analysis through SPSS 16 th version for windows. The result of normality test indicated that the data from each variable were normal and appropriate for data analysis with coefficients 0.237 for attitude and 0.153 for English proficiency. For linearity test, deviation of linearity was obtained. If probability is more than 0.05, the two variables are linear. The results showed that, the deviation from linearity between attitude and English proficiency was 0.106. To sum up all the data were linear for each correlation and regression. Correlation between students’ language learning strategies and English achievement Based on Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, the result indicated that there was significant correlation between language learning strategies and English achievement. The correlation coefficient or the r-obtained (0.665) was higher than r-table (0.165). Then the level of probability (p) significance (sig.2-tailed) was 0.000. It means that p (0.000) was lower than 0.05. Thus, there was significant correlation between the language learning strategies and English achievement. Table 1. Correlations test Language Learning Strategies English Achievement Language Learning Strategies Pearson Correlation 1 .665 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 141 141 English Achievement Pearson Correlation .665 ** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 141 141 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Influence of students’ language learning strategies and English achievement The results indicated that students’ language learning strategies influenced their English achievement significantly with tvalue (10.508) was higher than ttable (1.655) sig. value (.00) was lower than probability (.05). Therefore, there was a significant influence between language learning strategies toward their English achievement. Table 2. The regression analysis of language learning strategies and English achievement Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 24.594 4.602 5.344 .000 Language Learning Strategies 15.982 1.521 .665 10.508 .000 a. Dependent Variable: English Achievement ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 49 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi In order to know the percentage of language learning strategies influence on English achievement, R-Square was obtained. The result of the analysis revealed that the R Square (R 2 ) was .443. It means that language learning strategies gave significant effect in the level of 44.3 % toward English achievement, and 55.7 % was unexplained factors value. Table 3 is shown as the result of Model Summary follow. Table 3. Model summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .665 a .443 .439 9.009 a. Predictors: (Constant), Language Learning Strategies First, based on the result of pearson product moment correlations, it was found that there was a positive and a significant correlation between language learning strategies and English achievement of eleventh grade students of MAN 3 Palembang (r- .665). This means that language learning strategies had relation to their performance in English achievement. The explanation to support this finding is that from the beginning of the elementary school, the learners had been learning English, for example, reading English news paper or magazine, doing assigment, exploring to English conversation, and joining English couse inside or out side the school. In addition, the learners employed learning strategies more frequently than elementary student in learning, and they had good ability in learning. Abhakorn (2008) states that the students’ awareness of existing strategies and the choices of strategies will help them to solve problems and complete tasks easily. Moreover, Ketabi (2012) points out that gathering information to see how the learners learn and what strategies they used will help teachers learn more about the language learners learning process. It might be because the eleventh grade students of MAN 3 Palembang were aware of their English achievement. They had ability to formulate thought, feeling and actions that resulted in gaining one's goals utilizing some information related to learning strategies that an individual had acquired from motivation performances. Besides, they used to follow rules that existed in their school, especially in learning English. Furthermore, Ketabi (2012) believes that educators’ knowledge about the way students apply the strategies and the type of strategies they use in their context and situation will help them manage their resources and decision making process. Moreover, they were aware of their own learning process and strategies which assisted them to achieve learning outcome. Nevertheless, another study by Park (1997) showed a linear relationship between LLSs and TOEFL score which provided evidence for the importance of quality of strategy use in L2 proficiency. The use of various strategies had been found out to be effective in improving students’ English achievement. Futhermore, Chang (2011) states that language learning strategies are steps that the learners take to their learning and achieve desired goals. According to Ewuni (2012), Hamid (2011) and Ketabi (2012), language learning strategies and the factor can give contribution to students English achievement as well as influence the success and failure of the learners’ English achievement. In addition, this present study is in agreement with the previous studies. Ilma (2013) found that the strategies used by the students correlated with their English proficiency. For instance, they tried to find as many ways as they could use their English, notice their English mistakes and use that information to help them do better. The learners proved that more proficient learners seemed to employ a variety of strategies in many situation than to less proficient learners. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 50 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi In short, the total contribution of language learning strategies and English achievement showed significant result. However the unexplained factors also had contribution on English achievement. The findings of the study may have some pedagogical implications for foreign language teachers, course designers, parents, next researchers, and students. Finally, this study was successful in investigating the correlation and the influence between language learning strategies and English achievement of the eleventh grade students at MAN 3 Palembang. Conclusions From the findings described above, some conclusions could be presented related to two variables which were language learning strategies and English achievement. First, language learning strategies had significant correlation to their English achievement with r-.665 was higher than r-table .165. and the probability showed .00 was lower than .05. It showed in the level of strong correlation.The finding showed that the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted and the nullhypothesis (H0) was rejected. Then, based on the findings, it showed that there was significant influence (44.3%) of language learning strategies on their English achievement. It means that language learning strategies gave dominant effect on their English achievement. It also means that the students who could apply different learning strategies and the type of the strategies in their context and situation would help them manage their rescources and decision making process. The strategies used gave different contributions to the students’ language learning achievement and their English achievement. References Abhakorn, J. (2008). The implications of learner strategies for second or foreign language teaching. ARECLS, 5, 186-204. Abrar, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). International graduate classroom discussion engagement, challenges, and solving-strategies: Stories from Indonesian students in a United Kingdom university. Asia-Pacific Collaborative education Journal, 12(1), 5-20. Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., Makmur, M., & Marzulina, L. (2018). “If our English isn’t a language, what is it?” Indonesian EFL Student Teachers’ Challenges Speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9. Algarabel, S., & Dasi, C. (2001). The definition of achievement and the construction of tests for its measurement: A review of the main trends. Psicologica, 22, 43-66. Allwright, D. (1990). Autonomy in language pedagogy. CRILE Working Paper. Landcaster, UK: Centre for Research in Education, University of Lancaster. Bala, S. (2011). Influence of parental education and parental occupation on academic achievement of students. International Referred Research Journal, 3(30), 32-33. Brown, D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Pearson Education. Chamot, A.U., & Kupper. L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign language Annals, 22, 13-24. Chang, D. (2011). Language learning strategy profile of university foreign language majors in Taiwan. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(2), 201-215. Cohen, A. D. (2005). Coming to terms with language leaner strategies: what do strategy experts think about the terminology and where would they direct their research?. Issue Brief , 12. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 51 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Dhanapala, K. V., Kagamiyama, & Hiroshima, H. (2007). Focus on language learning strategies of advanced learners in Japan and Sri Langka. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 13(1), 153-164. Ewuni, A. M. (2012). Gender and socio-economic status as correlates of students’ academic achievement in senior secondary school. European Scientific Journal, 8(4), 23-36. Fitriah. (2009). Parents’ involvement and its influence on student English achievement (Undergraduate’s Thesis). Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta, Indonesia. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Habibi, A., Sofwan, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). English teaching implementation in Indonesian pesantrens: teachers’demotivation factors. Indonesian Journal of English Teaching, 5(2), 199- 213. Hamid, M. O. (2011). Socio-economic charateristic and English language achievement in rulal Bangladesh. Bangladesh e-journal of Sociology, 8(2), 31-51. Handbook for the TOEFL junior standard test. (2015). New York, NY: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from: http://www.ets.org/TOEFL _Junior Haryanto, E., & Mukminin, A. (2012). The Global, the National and the Local goals: English Language Policy Implementation in an Indonesian International Standard School. Excellence in Higher Education Journal, 3(2), 69-78. Ihsan, D., & Diem, C. D. (1997). The learning style and language learning strategies of the EFL students at tertiary level. The Journal of Education, 4, 319-332. Ilma, R. (2013). The correlation among English learning experience, motivation, language learning strategies, and English proficiency of the fourth semester law faculty students of sriwijaya university. Sriwijaya University, Palembang, Indonesia. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Ketabi, S. (2012). Can learning strategies predict language proficiency? A case in Iranian EFL context. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(4), 407-418. Makmur, Ismiyati, Y., Mukminin, A., & Verawaty. (2016). In search of good student teachers in writing skill: The impact of different task variance on EFL writing proficiency. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 2 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 Mukminin, A., Ali, Rd. M., & Fadloan, M.J. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’ experiences in english academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher training program. The Qualitative Report, 20 (9), 1394-1407. Mukminin, A., Noprival, Masbirorotni, Sutarno, Arif, N., & Maimunah. (2015). EFL Speaking anxiety among senior high school students and policy recommendations. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(3), 217-225. Mukminin, A., Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, S.R. (2015). Stories from the frontlines: In-service teachers’ demotivating factors and policy recommendations. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 1(2), 40‐52. DOI: 10.17985/ijare.56085. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H.H., & Todesco, A. (1975). The good language learner. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Park, G. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 211-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944- 9720.1997.tb02343.x. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). London, Great Britain: Pearson. http://www.ets.org/TOEFL%20_Junior http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02343.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02343.x ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 52 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Saputra, H., & Marzulina, L. (2015). Teaching Writing by Using Process Genre Approach to the Eighth Grade Students of SMP Negeri 22 Palembang. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 2(1), 1-12. http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/592 Souriyavongsa, T., Rany, S., Abidin, M. J. Z., & Mei, L. L. (2013). Factors causes students low English language learning: A case study in the national university of Laos. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 180-192. http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/592 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 53 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi The Use of Islamic History Videos through Swell Strategy to Improve Senior High Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement Juna Warni An English Teacher at SMKN 1 Benakat, Muara Enim, South Sumatera Junawarni60@gmail.com Abstract The objectives of this study were to find out: (1) whether or not there was a significant improvement on students’ narrative writing achievement between before and after the students were taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy, and (2) whether or not there was a significant difference on students’ narrative writing achievement between the students who were taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy and those who were not. The population of this study was all the eleventh grade students of Senior High School Nurul Iman Palembang which consisted of 65 students. The sample of this study was taken by using total sampling. Thus, the total number of the sample was 65 students. The sample was XI Science class (control group) which consisted of 33 students and XI Social Science class (experimental group) which consisted of 32 students. In collecting the data, written test was used. The test was given twice to both experimental and control group, as a pretest and posttest. To verify the hypotheses, the data of students’ pretest and posttest of both groups were analyzed by using paired sample t-test and independent sample t-test in SPSS. The findings showed that the p-output (sig 2-tailed) from paired sample t-test was 0.000 which was lower than 0.05, and the t-value 7.954 which was higher than t-table 2.040 (with df= 31). Then, p-output from independent sample t-test was 0.021 which was lower than 0.05, and t-value 2.371 which was higher than t-table 1.998 (with df= 63). Therefore, it could be inferred that narrative writing by using Islamic history videos through Social-Interactive Writing for English Language Learners (SWELL) Strategy gave significant improvement on the students’ narrative writing achievement, and gave significant difference between students’ who were taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy and those who were not. Keywords: narrative text, Islamic history videos, social-interactive writing for English language learners strategy Manuscript submitted: October 3, 2017 Manuscript revised: February 18, 2018 Accepted for publication: April 9, 2018 Introduction Nowadays, English is widely taught around the world as a second or foreign language, including in Indonesia (Abrar & Mukminin, 2016; Kamil & Mukminin, 2015; Yusuf, Yusuf, Yusuf, & Nadya, 2017; Hadiyanto, Mukminin, Failasofah, Arif, Fajaryani, & Habibi, 2017). According to Rini (2014), the aim of teaching of English in schools and universities in Indonesian is to make Indonesian students competitive internationally. For instance, students are expected to get ready to face the challenges of ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). In addition, Ammon, 2001; Seargeant & Erling, 2011 claim aside from being the world language for mailto:Junawarni60@gmail.com ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 54 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi international communication, English is used in foreign countries in major venues, like the news (as cited in Abrar, Mukminin, Habibi, Asyrafi, Makmur, & Marzulina, 2018; Haryanto & Mukminin, 2012). English is also essential to the field of education and as a foreign language that should be mastered by the students. In Indonesian academic curriculum, the aim of teaching English is to master four basic skills of English, which include listening, speaking, reading and writing skill. Writing is the process of organizing into a good composition of paragraph (Habibi, Sofwan, & Mukminin, 2016; Makmur, Mukminin, Ismiyanti, & Verawati, 2016; Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015). In addition, Xia (2011) defines “writing is a complex process that allows writers to explore thoughts and ideas, and make them visible and concrete” (p. 1). Writing encourages thinking and learning for it motivates communication and makes thought available for reflection. Moreover, Eliya (2015) claims that learning how to write well is very important for the students although writing is complex, this skill is very important especially to measure the students’ literature. Students can develop their ability to put their ideas or opinions in a composition by writing. Since writing skill is a complex process, writing is not easy to master and sometimes is difficult to teach (Makmur, Mukminin, Ismiyanti, & Verawati, 2016; Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015). As Paul (2003) states that writing is generally regarded as the most difficult of the four skills, and for most students it probably is. Writing requires mastery not only on the grammatical and rhetorical devices but also the conceptual and judgemental elements, and it is one of the problems. The writing problems affect not only native English speakers but also hundreds of students who are learning English as a second or foreign language around the world. The fact that the students do not have interest in the composition field leads them to be poor writers, to have low scores in their courses, to increase the errors in their homework, to write run-on sentences and to create incoherent paragraphs. These problems are also experienced by Indonesian students, as the English Foreign Language learners. According to Riyani (2009), writing problems faced by Indonesian students were actually resulted from the lack of vocabulary and grammar structures mastery, and from the lack of creativity skills. Based on the syllabus of the KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan) or School-Based Curriculum, there are some kinds of texts that are taught to the eleventh grade students. They are narrative text, recount text, and analytical exposition. Among those three types of the text, narrative text can be the most interesting for the student to study, because the social function of narrative text itself is to entertain the readers. According to Butcher (2006), narrative text is able to create a learning situation. It allows students’ minds to think the box of their own experiences and to develop creative ways to problem solve. In relation to the teaching strategy, there are still a lot of teachers in schools that do not apply the various strategies in teaching and learning process, including Indonesia. Based on my observation during teaching practice at a school in Palembang, I found out that the teachers did not apply the various strategies in the teaching learning process. They mainly used conventional strategy and mostly used LKS or students’ worksheet which led the students get bored and uninterested in the teaching and learning process. This condition affected their English score which I also found still poor. Besides, it revealed that writing itself is a serious problem for the students, especially in writing narrative text. It was supported by the questionnaire result which was distributed to the 30 students. I identified some problems, such as many students were not interested in learning English, especially in writing and speaking skill. They still had low in vocabulary; had difficulty in developing idea, in deciding which one is orientation, problem, or resolution in narrative text, and in making coherence among paragraphs. In order to solve these problems, the teacher should find out an interesting strategy, method or visual aid to teach writing, so he or she can make the students interested in writing ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 55 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi class. In this case, I used the video as a teaching medium which students are familiar with. Ikhlasia (2013) mentions that there are some benefits which students can gain by using the videos, such as learn some things that cannot be learnt through pictures and other media such as gestures and facial expression in a conversation. Since both research site and my educational background at State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang are based on Islamic teaching, it is important to explore Islam more to guide the students using an appropriate way in learning Islamic history. I decided to use Islamic history as the material in the students’ learning of narrative writing. In addition, in order to raise the students’ confidence in doing their assignment, to promote their interest in learning, and to bridge the heterogeneous of students’ level, I believed that SWELL Strategy will help them. SWELL (Social-Interactive Writing for English Language Learners) which was proposed by Teo (2006) is a kind of collaborative writing which is supported by theory related to collaborative writing, strategy of teaching writing and teacher as feedback provider. SWELL can increase the students’ confidence in sharing ideas without any doubt. Hopefully, with higher confidence owned by the students, they can solve the problems in writing. Based on the explanation above, I was interested in conducting a research under the objectives which were to find out: (1) whether or not there was a significant improvement on students’ narrative writing achievement between before and after the students were taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy, and (2) whether or not there was a significant difference on students’ narrative writing achievement between the students who are taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy and those who were not. Literature Review The concept of writing Writing is one of the four language skills that should be mastered in learning English. According to Huy (2015), writing is one of the ways to transmit thoughts or ideas to the other people. Based on Nacira (2010), writing is a form of expression and communication which enables learners to communicate ideas, feelings, and different attitudes in a written mode. These statements suggest that writing can be a very good medium in expressing one’s thought or ideas. Furthermore, Peregoy and Boyie (2008) state that writing is skill which helps students clarify their thoughts and remember what they have learned. Fasya (2015) also explains that writing deals with a language acquisition as students’ experiment with words, sentences, paragraph to communicate ideas effectively. It can be inferred that in order to have a good writing, the students should maximize English skills they have learned in relation to words, sentences, and paragraph. Narrative writing Narrative writing is defined as relating a sequence of events which occurs over some period of time. According to Wahidi (as cited in Ariesca & Marzulina, 2016), narrative is a text focusing specific participants. Its social function is to tell stories or past events and entertain the readers. Mislaini (2015) also mentions that in various sources narrative text can be found in the form: Fable, fairy stories, mysteries, science fiction, romance horror stories, legends, historical narratives, personal experience, and ballads. She also points out the generic structures of narrative text are orientation, complication, resolution, re-orientation (coda). Further, Indrasari (2010) adds that the language features used in narrative text are focus on specific participants, use of past tense, use of temporal conjunction, use of material (or action) processes, and use of mental process. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 56 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi SWELL strategy SWELL Strategy is basically a writing technique that is supported by several theories related to collaborative writing, Vygotsky’s theories of learning, and teachers as feedback providers (Fitria, 2012). SWELL which stands for Social-Interactive Writing for English Language Learners was firstly introduced by Teo in 2006. Teo applied SWELL Strategy which was modified from Topping Paired Method. Considering the weakness of Topping Paired Method which was having lack structure guidelines for students to follow, he reformulated and edited Topping Paired Method. As stated by Teo (2006), SWELL deals with the integration of the process and product of writing from getting idea until producing the best writing after revision. In implementing this technique, the teacher will pair up the students to work collaboratively, but their levels of English proficiency are different, so that a more proficient student could tutor a less proficient student. During the writing process, students with higher writing levels are assigned the role of Helper and those with lower writing skills are assigned the role of Writer. They have to carefully follow the suggested steps given by the teacher. The procedures of swell strategy Teo (2006) provides some steps which should be followed. The steps are ideas, draft, step, read, edit, best copy, and teacher evaluate. Step 1: Ideas In this step, the students are taught to develop the ideas. The helper tries to help the writer to develop the idea by giving the complete sentence that consists of WH Questions. In the SWELL method, to help ELLs understand the important components, such as character, setting, problem, and solution in narrative writing, I provided the participants with complete questions that mostly begin with “WH” words to generate ideas. Helper Writer Who did what? The writer answer the question and takes the Who did what to whom? Important notes. What happened? Where did it happen? When did it happen? Who are the important people (main characters) in the story? Why did he/she/they do that? What was the problem? How did he/she/they solve the problem? What happened next? Then what? Did anyone learn anything at the end? What was it? (Ask any questions you can think of)…? Then, both the helper and the writer read the notes and have discussion to make sure that their ideas are on the right tract. The students can consider changing their ideas or not. Besides, the students can cluster the idea to make it organize well. Step 2: Draft In this step, the teacher gives and explains the options that should be chosen by the students. After having an option, the writer begins to write. The writer is advised to write without worrying ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 57 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi too much about spelling. What important in this step is that the writer keeps on their writing and let their ideas flow. Step 3: Read The writer read the writing aloud. If he or she read a word incorrectly, the helper provides support if he or she is capable of doing so. Step 4: Edit In this step, the helper and the writer see the draft together, and the writer consider where he or she thought improvements are necessary. After finding the problems such as words, phrases, or sentences, they have to mark it with a colored pen, pencil, or highlighter. There are five editing levels in this step: meaning, order, style, spelling, punctuation. The helper needs to mark what the writer has missed and suggests some other changes might be needed to get the better result. Then, the writer revises the draft carefully. In this step, both students are allowed to use dictionary for checking the spelling. Step 5: Best Copy The writer then usually copy out a neat or best version of the corrected draft. The helper could provide help when necessary, depending on the skill of the writer. The best copy is a joint product of the pair and both students should have their names on it. The pair then turns in the completed copy to the teacher. Step 6: Teacher Evaluate This step is evaluating step. In this step, the teacher observes the students work and then provides some explicit instructions in writing a grammar or provides other corrective feedback. The pairs, the helper and writer, then review the teacher’s comments together. Methodology Research design This study was conducted by using experimental research method, pretest-posttest non- equivalent group design. There were two groups in this research: experimental and control group, which both of them would then be given pretest and posttest. The experimental group was given treatment by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy, but the control group was not. Research site, sampling, and participants In this research, the population was the eleventh grade students in the academic year of 2017/2018. The total number of the students was 65 students who were divided into two classes. I used total population sampling method in choosing the sample of the study. Therefore, the total number of the sample was 65 students. The sample was class XI Science class (control group) which consisted of 33 students and XI Social science class (experimental group) which consisted of 32 students. Basically, the groups were chosen based on the average mean score of the students in pretest. The class with lower score in pretest became the experimental group and the one with higher score became the control group. Data collection In collecting the data, pretest and posttest were used. The instrument which was used in pretest and posttest was the same. In this study, I did the validity tests, namely construct validity ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 58 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi and content validity. The construct validity of this study involved items for pre-test and post-test and lesson plans for experimental group. After constructing the instruments related to some aspect measured, then they were consulted to obtain some expert judgments from three validators to evaluate whether the components of the instrument were valid or not to be applied in research activities. From the three validators, it revealed that the instrument and lesson plan were appropriate to be applied. Next, content validity was used to measure the appropriate sampling of the content domain of items in a questionnaire. In order to judge whether or not a test has content validity, a specification of the skills or structures should be made based on the curriculum and syllabus. After that, to analyze the reliability test on students’ writing, inter-rater reliability was used. All in all, the tests were reliable. Data analysis In this study, the students in both groups, experimental and control group, were given pretest and posttest. The test was in the form of writing composition. The same instrument test was used in pretest and posttest for experimental and control group. In analyzing the students’ narrative writing, Writing Assesment and Evaluation Rubrics from Lexington High School (2012) was used. The rubrics are divided into two aspects which include content (purpose and narrative development), and clarity (structure, style, and conventions). The data were analyzed by three raters, and they were lecturers of English Education Study Program of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. The scores which were obtained from the rubric were multiplied by 5 to get the score that is appropriate with the grading system. After that, to analyze the data from the pre-experimental study, I submitted the data by using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0. Findings and Discussion The result of normality and homogeneity test In measuring normality test, I used Skewness and Kurtosis in SPSS program version 23.00. The test of the pretest and post-test results of students’ narrative writing achievement in experimental and control group were categorized normal, since the Skewness and Zkurtois values were between -1.96 and 1.96. Besides, in measuring homogeneity test, Levene statistics was used. The data is homogeneous since the p-output is higher than 0.05. Table 1. Normality test of students’ pretest and posttest scores in experimental group and control group N o Group N Test Skewness SEskew ness Zs Kurtosis SEKur tosis Zk Result 1 Experimental 32 Pretest 0.655 0.414 1.582 -0.919 0.809 -1.136 Normal Group Post-test 0.785 1.896 0.028 0.035 Normal 2 Control Group 33 Pretest -0.256 0.409 -0.625 -0.783 0.798 -0.981 Normal Post-test 0.341 0.833 -0.276 -0.346 Normal ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 59 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Table 2. Homogeneity test of students’ pretest scores in control and experimental group Variable Test Group N Levene Statistics Sig. Result Islamic History Pretest Experimental 32 3.775 0.057 Homogenous through SWELL Control 33 Strategy Posttest Experimental 32 0.249 0.620 Homogenous Control 33 The result of students’ pretest and posttest Based on the analysis of students’ pretest scores in experimental group, it revealed that there was no student (0%) in excellent category, 1 student (3%) in good category, and 7 students (22%) in fair category, and 24 students (75%) in poor category. Meanwhile, the result analysis of students’ posttest scores in experimental group, it also showed that there were 3 students (9.4%) in excellent category, 4 students (12.5%) in good category, 20 students (62.5%) in fair category, and 5 students (15.63%) in poor category. It could be inferred that the students got better score after the treatment. In addition, the analysis of control group’s pretest showed that there was no students (0%) in excellent and good category, 12 students (36.4%) in fair category, and 21 students (63.6%) in poor category. It could be concluded that both of pretest score in experimental group and control group belonged to poor category. Meanwhile, the analysis of control group’s posttest showed that there was 1 student (3.0%) in excellent, 3 students (9.1%) in good category, 15 students (45.5%) in fair category, and 12 students (36.4%) in poor category. It meant that control group also got quite better score than before. The result of paired sample t-test In this research, paired sample t-test was used to measure the significant improvement on students’ narrative writing by using Islamic history through SWELL Strategy at the eleventh grade students. The result of paired sample t-test is as follows. Table 3. Result of paired sample t-test from students’ pretest to posttest scores in experimental groups Using Islamic history Paired Sample t-test videos through SWELL Test Mean T Df Sig. (2 tailed) Ha Ho In SMA Nurul Pretest 40.7500 -7.954 31 0.000 Accepted Rejected Iman Palembang Posttes t 64.6250 Based on the table analysis, it was found out that the p-output was 0.000 and the t-value was 7.954. It could be stated that there was a significant improvement on students’ descriptive writing taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy because the p-output was lower than 0.05 and the t-value was higher than t-table (df 31 = 2.040). Therefore, it was concluded that the null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted. The result of independent sample t-test Independent sample t-test was used to measure the significant difference on students’ narrative writing scores taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy and those who were not. The result of Independent sample t-test can be seen in Table 4 below. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 60 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Table 4. Result of independent sample t-test from students’ posttest scores in control and experimental groups Independent Sample t-test Using SWELL Group Mean T Df Sig. (2 tailed) Ha Ho Strategy and those Control 57.8485 2.371 63 0.021 Accepted Rejected who were taught by method Experimental 64.6250 The result of paired sample t-test showed that there was significant improvement between students’ pretest and posttest in experimental group. The students of experimental group were taught narrative writing by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy, and the students of control group were not. Students’ narrative writing achievement in control group also got improvement but it was not as significant as the experimental group. Meanwhile, the result of independent sample t-test showed that there was significant difference between the students’ posttest score of experimental groups who were taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy and the control group who were taught by using strategy used by the teacher of English. On the other hand, the result of independent sample t-test showed that the significance level was not very high. It was because the difference of mean score of students’ posttest in control group and experimental group was low. It showed that control group also got the improvement. There were some reasons which caused this case. First, based on the information from their English teacher in preliminary study, both experimental group and control group have different level and style in learning. Sience class was more active and interested in learning English. Second, when I gave the posttest to experimental group, the condition was less conducive. At that time, most of students had to go to the school field for the intra-school organization inauguration, so the students were in a rush to do the posttest. However, based on the data analysis, there were significant improvement and difference on students’ narrative writing achievement taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy. Therefore, this strategy is considered effective to be used in improving students’ writing achievement. It is consistent with a study conducted by Indrasari (2010) who found that there are the positive improvements in students’ writing skill and students’ attitude towards writing in class. This result was also consistent with the study which was conducted by Priehatini (2011) who claimed that the SWELL is acceptable and applicable for the students, and it can help the students in improving their writing ability. Finally, it can be inferred that the implementation of Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy showed a significant improvement and significant difference on students’ narrative writing achievement at SMA Nurul Iman Palembang. The use of Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy successfully motivated the students in learning narrative writing and made the students interested and active in learning English. It could be assumed that the use of Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy is effective to improve students’ writing achievement. Conclusions Based on the findings and interpretation discussed above, it could be concluded as follows: first, from the result of pretest to posttest in teaching narrative writing by using Islamic history videos through SWELL strategy, significant improvement on students’ narrative writing achievement of the eleventh grade students of SMA Nurul Iman Palembang was found. Second, ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 61 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi it was found that there was a significant difference on students’ narrative writing achievement between those who were taught by using Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy and those who were not. The result could occur because Islamic history videos through SWELL Strategy made the students feel easier in brainstorming process, became more enjoyable in writing a narrative text, and feel more confident in doing their writing. Besides, they could interact with their friends, such as during checking the mistakes and giving suggestions about their each other writing. Therefore, it can be inferred that the use of Islamic history through SWELL strategy can be considered as one of the alternative strategies in teaching English especially narrative text. References Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., Makmur, M., & Marzulina, L. (2018). “If our English isn’t a language, what is it?” Indonesian EFL Student Teachers’ Challenges Speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 Abrar, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). International graduate classroom discussion engagement, challenges, and solving-strategies: Stories from Indonesian students in a United Kingdom university. Asia-Pacific Collaborative education Journal, 12(1), 5-20. Ariesca, & Marzulina, L. 2016. Teaching reading narrative text by using window notes strategy to the eighth grade students of SMP Muhammadiyah 4 Palembang. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 3(1), 23-32. Butcher. (2006). Narrative as a teaching strategy. The Journal of Correctional Education, 57(3), 195-207. Eliya, R. K. (2015). Improving students’ skills of writing short version of narrative texts by using comic strips for the eleventh grade of science class of MAN Yogyakarta in the academic year of 2012/2013 (Master’s thesis). Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Fasya, M. D. (2015). Improving the grade VIII students’ writing skill of narrative text through dictogloss at SMPN 1 Mungkid, Magelang (Master’s thesis). Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Fitria, N. A. (2012). The use of SWELL in teaching writing narrative texts to eight graders. Leksika,6(1), 10-14. Habibi, A., Sofwan, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). English teaching implementation in Indonesian pesantrens: teachers’demotivation factors. Indonesian Journal of English Teaching, 5(2), 199- 213. Hadiyanto, Mukminin, A., Failasofah, Arif, N., Fajaryani, N., & Habibi, A. (2017). In search of quality student teachers in a digital era: Reframing the practices of soft skills in teacher education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 71-79. Haryanto, E., & Mukminin, A. (2012). The Global, the National and the Local goals: English Language Policy Implementation in an Indonesian International Standard School. Excellence in Higher Education Journal, 3(2), 69-78. Huy, T. N. (2015). Problems affecting learning writing skill of grade 11 at Thong Linh High School. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 53-69. Ikhlasia, N. N. (2013). Using cooperative writing and videos to improve students’ writing skills on descriptive texts of class 7c students at SMP IT Abu Bakar Yogyakarta in the academic year of 2012/2013 (Undergraduate Thesis). Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 62 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Indrasari, N. (2010). Improving students’ writing skill of narrative texts by using short videos (a classroom action research at the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 2 Temanggung in the academic year of 2009/2010) (Master’s thesis). Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia. Kamil, D., & Mukminin, A. (2015). Indonesian Students’ Multicultural Awareness in Homogeneously and Heterogeneously Populated Schools and Multicultural Education Policy. Asia-Pacific Collaborative Education Journal, 11(1), 29-41. Makmur, Ismiyati, Y., Mukminin, A., & Verawaty. (2016). In search of good student teachers in writing skill: The impact of different task variance on EFL writing proficiency. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 2 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 Mislaini. (2015). Improving students’ reading comprehension of narrative text by using fable at the grade X SMAN 1 Bonai Darussalam (Master’s thesis). University of Pasir Pengaraian, Riau, Indonesia. Mukminin, A., Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, S.R. (2015). Stories from the frontlines: In-service teachers’ demotivating factors and policy recommendations. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 1(2), 40‐52. DOI: 10.17985/ijare.56085. Mukminin, A., Ali, Rd. M., & Fadloan, M.J. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’ experiences in english academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher training program. The Qualitative Report, 20 (9), 1394-1407. Nacira, G. 2010. People’s democratic republic of Algeria ministry of higher education and scientific research (Master’s thesis). University of Sétif, Shatif, Aljazair. Paul, D. (2003). Teaching English to Children in Asia. Hong Kong : Pearson Longman Asia ELT. Peregoy, F.S., & Boyle, F. O. (5th Eds.). (2008). Reading,writing, and learning in ESL : A resource book for teaching K-12 English learner. United States of America : Library of Congress in Cataloging – in – Publication Data. Priehatini, I. (2011). The use of SWELL (Social – interactive writing English language learners) in teaching writing recount text at the first grade of SMA Hidayatut – Thullab Sampang (Master’s thesis). Sunan Ampel State Islamic University, Surabaya, Indonesia. Retrieved from http://digilib.uinsby.ac.id/gdl.php?mod=browse&op=read&id=jiptiain Rini, J. E. (2014). The position of English in Indonesia. Beyond Words, 2(2), 20-40. Riyani. (2009). Improving the students’ writing skill through feedback (Master’s thesis). Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia. Teo, K.A. (2006). Social-interactive writing for English language learners! The CATESOL Journal, 18I(1), 160-178. Xia, C. (2011). Learners’ strategies in English writing. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(4), 221-226. Yusuf, Q., Yusuf, Y., Yusuf, B., & Nadya, A. (2017). Skimming and scanning techniques to assist EFL students in understanding English reading texts. Indonesian Research Journal in Education |IRJE|, 1(1), 43-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 http://digilib.uinsby.ac.id/gdl.php?mod=browse&op=read&id=jiptiain ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 63 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Learning Strategy towards Students’ Descriptive Writing Achievement Taught by Using Pick – List – Evaluate – Active – Supply – End Strategy Lenny Marzulina State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang lennymarzulina_uin@radenfatah.ac.id Abstract This study is an experimental study with a factorial design. The aims of the study were to find (1) the significant improvement on students’ descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE strategy, (2) the significant improvement in poor category taught by teacher’s strategy, (3) the significant difference on students' descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE and teacher’s strategy, (4) the significant difference in very good and fair categories taught by PLEASE strategy, (5) the influence of language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories, (6) the influence of language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE strategy, and (7) the interaction effects between language learning strategy toward students’ descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE and teacher’s strategies. In conducting my research activities, 72 out of 150 students were selected as the sample of the study using a two-stage cluster random sampling technique. The results of the study showed that first, the result analysis of measuring showed that significant improvement on students’ descriptive writing taught using PLEASE strategy using paired-sample test was found since the p-output (0.000) is lower than the significant level at 0.05. Second result analysis by using paired-sample test in measuring the significant improvement on students' descriptive writing achievement in poor category which was taught by using teacher strategy was found since the p-output (0.000) was less than the significance level at 0.05. Third analysis in measuring a significant difference on students' descriptive writing achievement which was taught by PLEASE and teacher’s strategy using independent-sample test was not found since the p-output (0.013) was greater than the significance level at 0,05. Fourth analysis in measuring the significant difference on students' descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories taught by PLEASE strategy using independent-sample test was not found since the p-output (0.286) was higher than the significance level at 0.05. Fifth result analysis on the influence of language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories using one-way ANOVA was found since the p-output (0.000) smaller than the significance level at 0,05. Sixth, the result analysis of measuring the influence of language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE strategy using one-way ANOVA was not found since the p-output (0.115) higher than the level of significance level at 0.05. The last analysis of measuring the interaction effects between language learning strategy toward students’ descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE and teacher strategy using two-ways ANOVA was not found since the p-output (0,430) was bigger than the significance level at 0,05. Keywords: strategy, language, learning, writing, descriptive, PLEASE strategy Manuscript submitted: July 11, 2017 Manuscript revised: December 5, 2017 Accepted for publication: January 12, 2018 mailto:lennymarzulina_uin@radenfatah.ac.id ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 64 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Introduction Language is a means of communication to connect people. Without language, it is difficult for people to communicate with others. English is as one of the international languages and its position as a foreign language in the teaching system in Indonesia so that English is taught from elementary to university level (Abrar & Mukminin, 2016; Azkiyah & Mukminin, 2017; Habibi, Sofwan, & Mukminin, 2016; Haryanto & Mukminin, 2012; Kamil & Mukminin, 2015; Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015; Mukminin, Masbirorotni, Noprival, Sutarno, Arif, & Maimunah, 2015). In addition, the 1989 law on the Indonesian educational system gives English a place as the first foreign language among other foreign languages used in Indonesia such as German, Arabic, or Japanese (Abrar, Mukminin, Habibi, Asyrafi, Makmur, & Marzulina, 2018). In learning English, students have to learn four language skills. One of the skills that has an important function for students is writing. Writing is part of the language skills and is an important aspect of language learning (Makmur, Mukminin, Ismiyanti, & Verawati, 2016; Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015). Richard and Renandya (2002) say that writing is the most difficult skill for language learners to master, the difficulty is not only in generating and organizing ideas but also in translating ideas into text. Furthermore, he also mentions that writing is a difficult skill for native language speakers and non-active speakers, as writers must balance complex issues such as content, organization, goals, readers, vocabulary, punctuation, spelling and mechanics. In addition, Pasand and Haghi (2013) said that writing is one the most important skills in learning a foreign language the nature of which has become clearer nowadays which involves the development of an idea, the capture of mental representations of knowledge, and of experience with subjects (as cited in Saputra and Marzulina, 2015) From the description, it reveals that writing needs many aspects to be mastered since it was involved three activities such as: generating, organizing and translating ideas into a written text. Besides the above factors in language learning, learning strategy is one of an important factors to help students successfully learn the language. It deals with Abhakorn (2008) that learning strategies are one of the determining variables that have a profound effect on how learners approach in language learning and learning strategies are essential for teachers and learners in acquiring foreign languages. Oxford (2003) claims that learning strategies make learning easier, faster, more fun, more independent, more effective, and more diverted to new situations. It is also supported by many studies that the use of language learning strategies may affect the ability of the students in foreign languages especially in English language skills. It is related to a study conducted by Ou-chun (2011) who found that EFL students' language learning strategies have a significant relationship with their English proficiency. This means that using language learning strategies can help students to achieve their goals of getting English well. Based on the interviews with teachers and students at SMP Nurul Iman Palembang, many students encountered many difficulties in writing, especially in writing descriptive text. They still seem confused about what they should write and how they should organize in their writings. This happened because they had so many things to write, but were unable to express their ideas in written form well. In addition, the students also have low ability in grammar, so it makes their writings difficult to understand. Then, there are some students also had difficulties to start their writing because they just translated their thoughts from their native language into English. They did not know what kind of tenses were used in descriptive text. In relation to the above problem, this study is aimed at helping students improve their ability to write using the PLEASE strategy and define language learning strategies that make students learn easier, faster, more fun, more independent and more effective. In PLEASE strategy, students should consider who will read their writing select the appropriate topic begin collecting data about what they will write and start their writing activities. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 65 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Literature Review Language learning strategy Macaro (2011) defines a language learning strategy as what learners engage in learning that involves behavior and thoughts. So, it can be said that language learning strategy is a step or action consciously chosen by learners. Furthermore, Oxford (1990) defines comprehensively about language learning strategies as a specific action, behavior, step or technique that students use to improve their own progress in developing skills in the acquisition of a second or foreign language. This strategy can facilitate students taking or using a new language. Based on some of the above explanation, it can be concluded that the definition of language learning strategy is not only as a tool to help students learn the language, but also used as a tool to serve many other purposes both in learning and using second language by understanding about learning strategy in directing students to get their target language. Types of language learning strategy Linguists distinguish the categorization of learning strategies into several types. O'Malley and Chamot (1995) defines learning strategies into three types; metacognitive, cognitive, and social-affective strategies. a. Metacognitive This strategy involves processes such as planning for learning, thinking about their learning process, self-correcting, and evaluating learning after the activities are completed. An example of this strategy is planning and self-monitoring. b. Cognitive This strategy involves the process of learning directly about the learning material itself and has limited certain learning tasks. An example of this strategy is repetition and conclusion. c. Social Affective This strategy has a close relationship with social activities and interacts with others. An example of this strategy is social-affective cooperation in questioning for clarification. The concept of teaching Teaching means helping and sharing knowledge to others and can also provide information to do something. Brown (2007) defined teaching as showing or helping someone to learn how to do something, give instruction, guide in study something, give knowledge, cause to know or understand. Teaching can also be interpreted by facilitating the students to be able to learn the material. Then, Brown (2000) states that teaching is guiding and facilitating for learning, setting conditions for learning. Teaching also provides some information from the subject to the students in the classroom. Etymologically, the word learning is translated as "instruction". The word learning itself is the development of the term teaching and learning or teaching process that has long been used in formal education (school). Substitution of the term from "teaching and learning activities" to "learning", of course not just change name or term, but also accompanied by the development of way of view of the meaning or paradigm contained therein. The term learning is used today as the development of the term teaching-learning, which is much influenced by the flow of holistic cognitive psychology. In essence, learning activities put students as a source of learning activities. The Concept of Writing Writing is a very complex communication process that includes both cognitive and metacognative elements. Richardson and Morgan (2003) state that writing is the most complex communication process activity in communicative art. Similarly, Negari (2011) states writing is a ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 66 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi complex process involving a number of cognitive and metacognative elements, for example; brainstorming, planning, outling, drafting and revision. From that view, it can be assumed that writing is not only complicated but also difficult to teach where we need to master grammatical and other components. Furthermore, Harmer (2004) states that writing has mechanical components like other skills such as: handwriting, spelling, punctuation, and good sentence patterns, paragraphs, and texts. Teachers who teach writing are aware that students must have qualified mastery of the intended component before before moving on to the writing process itself. In addition, there are several components of the writing process proposed by Clark (2007). Prewriting, at this stage, the author generates ideas, brainstorming topics, web ideas together, or talking or thinking about ideas. The teacher explains that students can get to write ideas from personal experiences, stories, pictures, magazines, newspapers, television, and various other sources. Then, drafting, students start to place their ideas on paper. In writing activities at this stage, students need to keep in mind the genre or format, reader, and purpose. Revising, revisions are seen in the organization and structure of writing. When revising, students analyze their writing in the form of sorting words, descriptive language in science fiction, topic sentences and supporting details in a persuasive essay. In the process of editing, see the writing mechanism. Thus, students can understand what is done in both activities. Publishing, at this stage, the teacher allows students to appreciate the results of their hard work. At this stage, students are ready to produce final copies, which can be handwritten or typed on a word processor. Reflecting, at this stage is a key element in the writing process. This encourages writers to think about their writing. Reflection also allows authors to look back at brainstorming and early writing activities to see if the original purpose is met. The concept of PLEASE strategy PLEASE Strategy is one of the mnemonic strategies that provides students with a roadmap to write a paragraph. Welch (1992) assumes PLEASE strategy is used as a management strategy in solving problems in writing paragraphs Steps in the PLEASE strategy as described by Akincilar (2010). They are: choose topics, readers and paragraph types, list your ideas on the topic, evaluate your list, enable paragraphs with topic sentences, provide supporting sentences and end with closing sentences and evaluate your writing. PLEASE strategy can help to improve students' writing skills especially in writing a paragraph. This strategy can be used not only in writing descriptive text but also essays. This strategy helps students to start writing and help them to write step by step until they finish writing descriptive text. In applying PLEASE strategy, students should know who will read their writing and select appropriate topics and begin collecting data or information about what they will write and start writing them. Teaching procedure using PLEASE strategy Graham and Harris (2007) mentions several teaching steps writing using the PLEASE strategy as follows: Step 1. Pick : The first step of mnemonic is to remind the students about the topic, the reader and the type of paragraph they are going to write. Step 2. List : The second step is to remind students to create a list of ideas they will write. Step 3. Evaluate : At this stage, students evaluate their list to see if the stages are complete or need additional ideas. Step 4. Activate : The students activate the paragarap by composing the topic sentence. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 67 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Step 5. Supply : Students give sentences to support topic sentences using the topic of ideas. They are expected to turn their ideas into sentences and describe their ideas appropriately. Step 6. End : The last step of mnemonic is to remind students to end their writing with conclusions. Students are expected to evaluate their work by revising their ideas and correcting the mistakes they make. Methodology Research design This research is a class experiment research. In this study, classes were divided into two groups: experimental groups who were taught by PLEASE strategy and control groups who taught by teacher strategy. In the control class, they were only given pretest and posttest. Then, in conducting my research activities, all population were given a questionnaire to determine the categories of students’ language learning strategies. The result of category analysis of students’ learning strategy is divided into five categories: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive and social-affective. In this study, a factorial design was used. Fraenkel and Wallen (1990) states that a factorial design is an experimental design that includes two or more independent variable groups (at least one manipulated variable) to see the effects of the variables and the interaction effects of one with the other against the dependent variable. The diagram of the factorial design can be illustrated in the following table. Table 1. Diagram dari factorial design Experimental R O1 X1 Y1,2,3,4,5 O2 control R O1 - Y1,2,3,4,5 O2 Experimental R O1 X1 Y1,2,3,4,5 O2 Control R O1 - Y1,2,3,4,5 O2 Note: R : Random Sampling Technique O1 : Pre-test O2 : Post-test X1 : Teaching Descriptive Writing Using PLEASE Y1 : Memory Language Learning Strategy Y2 : Cognitive Language Learning Strategy Y3 : Compensation Language Learning Strategy Y4 : Metacognitive Language Learning Strategy Y5 : Social Language Learning Strategy Research site, sampling, and participats Frankel, Wallen and Hyun (2012) state that the population is a group where the reseracher will describe the results of the research. In this study, the population was all the eighth grade students of SMP Nurul Iman Palembang in academic year of 2016/2017. There were 150 students consisting of 77 males and 72 female students. In this study, two stage cluster random sampling technique was used. Questionnaires on student language learning strategies were given to all population to determine the number of samples. Then, each class was taken randomly consisting of 3 students for the memory, 3 students for the cognitive, 3 students for the compensation, 3 students for the metacognitive, 3 students for affective and 3 students for the social category. There were 18 students based on each category for each class taken as a sample ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 68 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi of the study, so the total sample used in this study were 72 students. Furthermore, the sample was divided into two groups. The first group is the experimental class group who were taught descriptive writing by using PLEASE strategy with 36 students consisting of: 6 students in memory, 6 students in cognitive, 6 students in compensation, 6 students in metacognitive, 6 students in affective and 6 students in social language learning strategies. Then, the second group was the control class group who were taught by using teacher’s strategy consisting of 36 students: 6 students in memory, 6 students in cognitive, 6 students in compensation, 6 students in metacognitive, 6 students in affective and 6 students in social language learning strategies. Data collection In collecting the data, test and questionnaire were used. Descriptive writing test was given to the experiment and control groups. The experimental group who were taught descriptive writing using PLEASE strategy. While, the second group is a control group who were taught descriptive writing using teacher’s strategy. There are two test given. They are (pretest) given before treatment is given and (posttest) is given after the treatment. Then, questionnaires was provided to classify the students’ categories in language learning strategies into five types; memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, and social strategies. There are 50 items of questions with five categories of assessment including: (a) the memory strategy is an effective way of remembering, (b) the cognitive strategy is to use mental processes, (c) the compensation strategy is used to see lost knowledge compensation, (d) strategy metacognitive is to organize and evaluate learning, and (e) social strategy is related to learning with others. In answer to the question in the questionnaire, five choices of answers are given to the students (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = average, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). In choosing the answer, students were asked to choose one option according to the questions given in the questionnaire where the students were given 25 minutes to complete all the questions in the questionnaire. Data analysis Validity and reliability Fraenkel, Wallen and Hyun (2012) assume validity test as the suitability and accuracy of research data used valid or not. In conducting validity test, there are three types of validity tests conducted namely the validity test construct, the test item question, and the content validity test. Hughes (1989) states that tests are said to have a construct of validity when measuring what should be measured. Furthermore, Sugiyono (2010) states that to measure the construct of the validity, expert judgments is necessarily used to measure the construct validity test. The construct validty test provides an assessment of the instruments in pretest, posttest and lesson plan which were used in this research activities. In construct validity test, an assessment of three validators to assess whether or not a research instrument can be used or not in this study. Three validators were lecturers who teach writing in English Education Program of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. Hughes (1989) states that tests are said to have content validity if they are representative samples of language skills, structures. There are two content validity tests conducted by the researcher. First is the content validity test of the pretest and posttest questions used in the study to assess whether the content of the test has content validity or not, the skill or structure specification must be made based on the curriculum and syllabus. Then, the results of the analysis in making the validity of the content are presented in the test table of the specification including: basic competence, subject matter/discussion, indicator, item test number, total question, test type and answer key. Then, a second validity test was performed on the ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 69 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi questionnaire used in the study. To facilitate the understanding of the contents of the questionnaires used in the study, 50 items of questionaire were translated into Indonesian. Then the translation results were validated to the validators to see if the contents of the questionnaire that has been translated in accordance with existing content was standard or not. Fraenkel and Wallen (1990) state that the reliability test is used to measure the consistency of two values obtained for each individual from one administration of another instrument and from one set of other items. According to Cohen et al. (2007), reliability in quantitative research is essentially a synonym for dependability, consistency and replicability over time, over instruments and over groups of respondents (as cited in Putra and Marzulina, 2015,). Then, Fraenkel and Wallen (1990) suggest that scores are considered reliable if the significance score is at least or higher than 0.70. In conducting reliability test, inter-rater reliability test was done by using Spearman Rank Order. In this test, the result of the students 'writing achievement was evaluated by three assessors (raters) with the assessment component of the students' descriptive writing (scoring rubrics). From the inter-rater reliability test results, it was obtained that the p-output (0.78) was higher than (0.70). It was assumed that this research instrument was categorized reliable. Normality test Normality test is used to measure whether the data obtained is normal or not. Data can be stated normal if the p-output is higher than 0.05. In measuring the normality test, 1-sample Kolmogronov Smrinov was used. The normality test was used to measure the questionnaire on students' learning learning strategy and students' descriptive writing achievement including pretest and posttest scores in experimental and control classes. After conducting the test, the result showed that the data in pretest and posttest were considered normal for both control (pretest: 0.113; posttest: 0.797) and experimental group (pretest: 0.851; posttest: 0.394). Homogenity test Homogeneity test is used to measure the scores obtained whether homogeneous or not. Basrowi (2007) states that scores are categorized homogeneous if p-output is higher than the mean significant difference level at 0.05. In measuring homogeneity test, Levene Statistics was used. Homogeneity test was used to measure the questionnaire on students' language learning strategies and students' descriptive writing achievement including pretest and posttest scores in experimental and control classes. The results of homogeneity test showed that the data were considered homogeneous for both control group (0.395) and experimental group (0.111). Findings and Discussions The result analysis of measuring significant improvement on students’ descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE strategy From the result analysis of measuring significant improvement on students’ descriptive writing who were taught by PLEASE strategy using paired-sample test, it showed that the result of the p-output (0.000) is lower than the significant level at 0.05. From that result, it can be assumed that there is a significant improvement on students' descriptive writing achievement before and after being taught using PLEASE strategy. The result analysis of significant improvement on students’ descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE strategy was displayed in Table 2. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 70 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Table 2. Result analysis of significant improvement using paired sample test Paired Samples Test Paired Differences T Df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 SCORE – DATA 54,40278 18,92287 2,23008 49,95612 58,84943 24,395 71 ,000 Measuring significant improvement on students’ descrpitive writing in poor category taught using teacher strategy From the result analysis of measuring significant improvement on students' descriptive writing achievement in poor category taught by teacher strategy using paired-sample test, it was found that p-output (0.000) less than the significance level at 0.05. From the result, it can be assumed that there is a significant improvement in students' descriptive writing achievement in poor categories before and after being taught with teacher strategy. The result analysis of significant improvement on students’ descriptive writing achievement in poor category taught using teacher strategy was displayed in Table 3. Table 3. Result analysis of significant improvement using paired sample test Paired Samples Test Paired Differences T Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Deviati on Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pai r 1 SCORE – DATA 33,9714 3 8,08465 ,96630 32,0437 1 35,8991 4 35,15 6 69 ,000 Measuring significant difference on students’ descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE and teacher strategies From the analysis of significant difference on students' descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE and teacher strategy using independent-sample test, it was found that the p-output (0.013) greater than the significance level at 0,05. From that score, it can be assumed that there is no significant difference on students' descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE and teacher strategies, in other words, it can be stated that significant difference between teaching descriptive writing taught using PLEASE and teacher strategies was not found. The result analysis of significant difference on students’ descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE and teacher strategy was displayed in Table 4. Table 4. Result analysis of significant difference using independent sample test Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 71 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi F Sig. T df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper SCORE Equal variances assumed 6,556 ,013 -18,559 70 ,000 -35,11111 1,89187 -38,88434 -31,33789 Equal variances not assumed -18,559 60,851 ,000 -35,11111 1,89187 -38,89434 -31,32789 Measuring significant difference on students’ descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories taught using PLEASE strategy From the analysis of significant difference on students' descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories taught by PLEASE strategy using independent-sample test, it was found that the p-output (0.286) greater than the significance level at 0.05. From that score, it can be assumed that there is no significant difference on students' descriptive writing achievement in very good and poor categories. Or in other words, it can be stated that there is no difference between the teaching of descriptive writing using PLEASE strategy in both categories (very good and fair). The result analysis of significant difference on students’ descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories taught using PLEASE strategy was displayed in Table 5. Table 5. Result analysis of significant difference using independent samples test Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. T Df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper SCORE Equal variances assumed 1,176 ,286 6,162 34 ,000 9,12381 1,48060 6,11487 12,13275 Equal variances not assumed 5,910 25,447 ,000 9,12381 1,54389 5,94695 12,30067 Measuring signficant influence on language learning strategy towards students’ descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories taught using PLEASE strategy From the result analysis on the influence of language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories using one-way ANOVA, it was found that the p-output (0.000) smaller than the significance level at 0,05. From that result, it can be assumed that significant influence on language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories taught using PLEASE strategy was found. The result analysis of significant influence on language learning strategy towards students’ descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories taught using PLEASE strategy was displayed in Table 6. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 72 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Table 6. Result analysis of significant influence using one-way ANOVA ANOVA SCORE Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 88439,065 2 44219,532 4624,903 ,000 Within Groups 659,721 69 9,561 Total 89098,786 71 Measuring significant influence on language learning strategy towards students’ descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE strategy From the result analysis of the influence on language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE strategy using one-way ANOVA, it was found that the p-output (0.115) greater than the level of significance level at 0.05. From that score, it can be assumed that significant influence on language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE strategy was not found. The result analysis of significant influence on language learning strategy towards students’ descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE strategy was displayed in Table 7. Table 7. Result analysis of significant influence using one-way ANOVA ANOVA Ss_Scores Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1,855 5 ,371 1,955 ,115 Within Groups 5,695 30 ,190 Total 7,550 35 Measuring the interaction effects of language learning strategies towards students’ descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE and teacher strategies From the result analysis of interaction effects between language learning strategy toward students’ descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE and teacher strategy using two-ways ANOVA, it showed that the p-output (0,430) is bigger than the significance level at 0,05. From the score, it can be assumed that there is no interaction effect between language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE and teacher strategies. The result analysis of interaction effect of language learning strategy towards students’ descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE and teacher strategy was displayed in Table 8. Table 8. Result analysis of interaction effect using two-ways ANOVA Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Ss_Scores Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 2,465 a 11 ,224 1,517 ,149 Intercept 715,067 1 715,067 4839,655 ,000 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 73 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi LLS 1,618 5 ,324 2,190 ,067 WritingStrategies ,001 1 ,001 ,008 ,931 LLS * WritingStrategies ,733 5 ,147 ,992 ,430 Error 8,865 60 ,148 Total 956,730 72 Corrected Total 11,330 71 a. R Squared = ,218 (Adjusted R Squared = ,074) Conclusion From the findings above, some conclusions can be drawn as follows. First, the result analysis of measuring significant improvement on students’ descriptive writing taught using PLEASE strategy using paired-sample test showed that a significant improvement on students' descriptive writing achievement before and after being taught using PLEASE strategy was found. It can be concluded that alternative hypothesis is accepted and null hyopthesis is rejected. Second, the result analysis of measuring significant improvement on students' descriptive writing achievement in poor category taught by teacher strategy using paired-sample test was found. Therefore, it can be concluded that alternative hypothesis is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected. Third, the analysis of measuring significant difference on students' descriptive writing achievement taught using PLEASE and teacher strategy using independent-sample test was not found. This means that alternative hypothesis is rejected and null hypothesis is accepted. Fourth, the next analysis of measuring significant difference on students' descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories taught by PLEASE strategy using independent-sample test was not found. This result suggests that alternative hypothesis is rejected and null hypothesis is accepted. Fifth, the result analysis on the influence of language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement in very good and fair categories using one-way ANOVA was found. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected. Sixth, the result analysis of measuring the influence of language learning strategy towards students' descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE strategy using one-way ANOVA was not found. So, it can be concluded that alternative hypothesis is rejected and null hypothesis is accepted. And the last analysis of measuring the interaction effects between language learning strategy toward students’ descriptive writing achievement taught by PLEASE and teacher strategy using two-ways ANOVA was not found. Thus, it can be concluded that alternative hypothesis is rejected and null hypothesis is accepted. References Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., Makmur, M., & Marzulina, L. (2018). “If our English isn’t a language, what is it?” Indonesian EFL Student Teachers’ Challenges Speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9. Abrar, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). International graduate classroom discussion engagement, challenges, and solving-strategies: Stories from Indonesian students in a United Kingdom university. Asia-Pacific Collaborative education Journal, 12(1), 5-20. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 74 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Akincilar, V. (2010). The effect of “PLEASE” strategy training through the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) model on fifth grade Efl students’ descriptive writing: Strategy training on planning. Midle East Technical University. Retrived From http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/3/12611947/index.pdf on Friday. Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian suatu pendekatan praktik. Jakarta, Indonesia: PT Rineka Cipta. Azkiyah, S.N., & Mukminin, A. (2017). In search of teaching quality of student teachers: the case of one teacher education program in Indonesia. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 7(4), 105-124. Basrowi & Soenyono. (2007). Metode analisis data sosial. Kediri, Indonesia: CV. Jenggala Pustaka Utama. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles an interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge. Clark, S.K (2007). Writing strategies for science. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education. San Fransisco, CA: Mc. Graw Hill. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: Mcgraw Hill Companies. Habibi, A., Sofwan, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). English teaching implementation in Indonesian pesantrens: teachers’demotivation factors. Indonesian Journal of English Teaching, 5(2), 199- 213. Harmer, J. (2004). The practice of english language teaching (rev.ed). London, UK: Longman. Haryanto, E., & Mukminin, A. (2012). The Global, the National and the Local goals: English Language Policy Implementation in an Indonesian International Standard School. Excellence in Higher Education Journal, 3(2), 69-78. Hughes, A. (1989). Testing language teachers. London, UK: Cambridge University Press. Makmur, Ismiyati, Y., Mukminin, A., & Verawaty. (2016). In search of good student teachers in writing skill: The impact of different task variance on EFL writing proficiency. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 2 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 Mukminin, A., Ali, Rd. M., & Fadloan, M.J. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’ experiences in english academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher training program. The Qualitative Report, 20 (9), 1394-1407. Mukminin, A., Noprival, Masbirorotni, Sutarno, Arif, N., & Maimunah. (2015). EFL Speaking anxiety among senior high school students and policy recommendations. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(3), 217-225. Mukminin, A., Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, S.R. (2015). Stories from the frontlines: In-service teachers’ demotivating factors and policy recommendations. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 1(2), 40‐52. DOI: 10.17985/ijare.56085. Ou-chun, O. (2011). Influence of english proficiency on postgraduate students’ use of language learning strategies. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(12), 766-772. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York, NY: Newbury House Publishers. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York, NY: Newbury House Publishers. O’Malley, J. M., &Chamot, A. U. (1995). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Putra, H., & Marzulina, L. (2015). Teaching reading comprehension by using Content-based instruction (CBI) method to the second year learners at MTS Al-furqon Prabumulih. http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 75 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 2 (1), 1-12. http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/592. Richard, J. C., & Renandya , W. A. ( 2002). Meethodology in language teaching. New York, NY : Cambridge University Press. Saputra, H., & Marzulina, L. (2015). Teaching writing by using process genre approach to the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 22 Palembang. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 2 (1), 1-12. http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/592. Sugiyono. (2010). Metode penelitian pendidikan: Pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung, Indonesia: Alfabeta. http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/592 http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/592 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 76 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi An investigation into a link Between Classroom Environment and EFL Student Teachers’ Academic Achievement Mei Afriliani An English Teacher of SMA Muhammadyah Lahat, South Sumatera meiafriliani56@gmail.com Muhamad Holandyah Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teaching Sciences State Islamic University of Raden Fatah muhammadholandyah_uin@radenfatah.ac.id Abstract The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between classroom environment and academic achievement of English Education Study Program students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang by conducting correlational research. 366 students of English majors of the second, fourth, and sixth semester took part in the study as the sample by using convenience sampling. The data of this study were collected by administering a questionnaire of College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) to assess classroom environment of the students and the students’ cumulative GPA was also used to get the students’ academic achievement score. Pearson Product Moment and regression analysis were used to analyze the data. From the analysis, it was found out that the r was 0.296 and it was higher than r-table (0.1059) and the level of probability (p) significance (sig.2-tailed) was 0.000. It means that H0 was rejected and H1 was accepted. This result showed that there was a significant correlation between classroom environment and the students’ academic achievement. Additionally, the regression analysis showed that classroom environment contributed only 8,8 % to the students’ academic achievement. Keywords: classroom environment, academic achievement, student teachers Manuscript submitted: August 8, 2017 Manuscript revised: January 11, 2018 Accepted for publication: April 9, 2018 Introduction In this globalization era, the students in every institution are trained to be academically successful (Azkiyah & Mukminin, 2017; Mukminin, Rohayati, Putra, Habibi, & Aina, 2017; Mukminin, Kamil, Muazza, & Haryanto, 2017). Brockman and Russell (2012) consider thatacademic success is directly linked to the successful outcomes and values for youth in society. Furthermore, Musthaq and Khan (2012), Luschei (2017), and Sánchez-Escobedo and Hollingworth (2017) argue that the social and economic development of the country is directly linked with students’ academic performance. Performance is how well or badly something is done. In educational parlance, performance is indicated through academic achievement (Siahi & Maiyo, 2015). Hisken (2011) defines academic achievement as the level of actual accomplishment or proficiency one has achieved in an academic area, as opposed to one's potential. Therefore, mailto:meiafriliani56@gmail.com mailto:muhammadholandyah_uin@radenfatah.ac.id ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 77 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi the quality of student experiences during college is shown by ones academic achievement (Abrar & Mukminin, 2016; Luschei, 2017; Haryanto & Mukminin, 2012; Mukminin, Haryanto, Makmur, Failasofah, Fajaryani, Thabran, & Suyadi, 2013; Mukminin & McMahon, 2013). Academic achievement is important for students to prepare them for future career and to allow students to enter competitive fields. It also plays an important role in producing the best quality graduates who will become great leader and manpower for the country thus responsible for the country’s economic and social development (Ali, Mokhtar, & Kamaruzaman, 2009; Hadiyanto, Mukminin, Failasofah, Arif, Fajaryani, & Habibi, 2017; Haryanto & Mukminin, 2012). Moreover, academic achievement serves as a key criterion in order to judge students’ true potentials and capabilities (Daulta, 2008; & Nuthanap, 2007) which can help students in all areas of their lives. Teaching is guiding and facilitating learning, enabling the learner to learn, setting the conditions for learning (Ariesca & Marzulina, 2016; Azkiyah & Mukminin, 2017; Mukminin, Rohayati, Putra, Habibi, & Aina, 2017; Mukminin, Kamil, Muazza, & Haryanto, 2017). In the teaching and learning process, it can be seen that there is a difference in student’s achievement. This is caused by different factors that affect the academic achievement of students (Kamil & Mukminin, 2015; Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015). One of factors that affects students’ academic achievement is classroom environment. The classroom is a basic structural unit of our educational system (Talton & Simpson, 2007). It is a miniature community in which members’ interest influences the behavior of others. Vygotsky stated that classroom environment is the culture that can be the place to study and learn about knowledge (as cited in Wei & Elias, 2011, p. 240). Classroom environment is an embodiment of physical psychosocial conditions. According to Carpenter (2006), physical environment is made up of chairs, desks, tables, lightening, ventilation, space, acoustics and instructional materials, while psychosocial environment refers to the feeling, a type of classroom that has to do with interactions in the classroom. Classroom environment plays an important part of students’ educational success (Habibi, Sofwan, & Mukminin, 2016; Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015. Based on Vygotsky’s theory of social development (as cited in Wei & Elias, 2011, p. 240), students’ learning development can be determined by the classroom environment because students spend their time to learn mostly in the classroom although learning can take place in other venues. Moreover, Yan (2006) said that for foreign language learners, classroom is the main place where they are frequently exposed to the target language. Therefore, creating a conducive learning environment by providing sufficient classroom environment physically and social psychologically are very important. Taken into the consideration that classroom environment affects students’ academic achievements, the students’ perceptions of classroom environment are very important. Therefore, the reason why students failed in some subjects is probably because they are not engagedd in classroom activities sufficiently. The finding of study conducted by Ziegler, Cheryan, Plaut and Metzoff (2014) showed that the physical classroom environment, such as inadequate lighting, noise, low air quality, and deficient heating in the classroom are significantly related to lower student achievement. Physical environment is not only the main problem that caused poor achievement, but also interaction in classroom. As stated by William (1997) “classroom environment is a dynamic system where students interact each other. It is the place where the interaction between student and student or between students and instructor occur most frequently” (p. 9). According to Dewey (2006), the poor student relationship may lead to poor achievement, while good student/teacher relationship may lead to better achievement. Moreover, Bucholz and Sheffler (2009) revealed that a warm interaction in a classroom environment can lead to increased academic achievement and a sense of pride and belonging in a college. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 78 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Preliminary study was conducted by interviewing students of English Education Study Program of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. It revealed that some students enjoyed studying because they felt that classroom was already well-structured, clean enough, conducive lighting, and comfortable air temperature. However, the problem started when the electricity stopped working. The classroom was hot and dark and this bothered the students, especially those who sit on the back. In such situations, the students started feel sleepy, and made some of them lost their focus to fully grasp the lecture. Students also said that they were dissatisfied with their academic achievement because the class sometimes seemed boring and they did not participate in the class as well. This kind of interaction within the class influenced their feeling. Some researchers have tried to investigate the correlation between students’ perception of classroom environment and their academic achievement. Kaur (2001) showed that there was a positive correlation between classroom environment and academic achievement. Temperature and ventilation also affects the classroom learning environment. In the study of Ziegler et al. (2014), it was found out that the building’s structural facilities influenced students’ achievement. On the other hand, one study did not find relationship between structural condition and student performance in Wyoming (Picus, Marion, Calvo, & Glenn, 2005). From the explanations above, the aims of the study were to find out: (1) whether or not there was any significant correlation between classroom environment and academic achievement of English Education Study Program Students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang, and (2) whether or not classroom environment significantly influenced academic achievement of English Education Study Program students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. Literature Review Classroom environment and academic achievement Classroom environment is the place in which teaching and learning process occurs. Akubue (2001) defines the classroom as a base for all types of activities. It holds students together and offers them the opportunities of achieving the purpose of education. A greater part of educational activities of any school or college occurs in this room. Hannah (2013) also describes that classroom is where the student develops what they want their future to look like, as well as knowledge of the skills they need to reach that goal. The classroom environment also defines in terms of the students’ and teachers’ shared perceptions in that environment (Fraser & Pickett, 2010). In addition, the classroom is a place for interaction amongteachers, materials and students in order to create students behavior. However, classroom environment has influence in the teaching and learning process. Abrar, Mukminin, Habibi, Asyrafi, Makmur, a Marzulina (2018) state that classroom environment, and negative comments from teachers and peers, may hinder the learners from actively engaging, and eventually make it difficult to speak. Students’ academic achievement refers to the grades obtained by students upon accomplishing the courses in the end of their study of an instructional environment, specifically in school, college, and university. Hisken (2011) defines academic achievement as the level of actual accomplishment or proficiency one has achieved in an academic area, as opposed to one's potential. There were two kinds of academic achievement, GPA (Grade Point Average), which is the students’ academic achievement in each semester that students achieve at the end of their college, and Cumulative GPA, which is obtained by having score of each subject from the whole semesters that they already take. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 79 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi The relationship between classroom environment and academic achievement The role of classroom environment in influencing academic outcomes has been shown by many researchers in recent years (Suleman & Hussain, 2014; Fraser 1986). The psychosocial environment in a classroom can significantly predict academic achievement (Joanna, 2009). Recent research in retention rates of university students has contributed evidence for the positive relationship between the perception of classroom environment and academic achievement (Mokhtar, 2003). Fraser (1986) asserts that the classroom environment is such a potent determinant of student outcomes that it should not be ignored because students will perform better and have more positive attitudes in learning when they perceive classroom environment positively (as cited in MacAulay, 1990). As reported by Gazelle (2006) that a positive classroom learning environment is closely related to students’ enhanced academic achievement. Therefore, it can be said that students’ perception of classroom environment will affect students’ academic achievement because the students who have the positive perception of their classroom environment will have a high interest with the lesson and it may increase their grades. Methodology Research design In this study, correlational research method was used to find out the correlation between variables and interpret the result that may appear. This method was used to find out the correlation between classroom environment and academic achievement of students of English education study program at State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. Creswell (2005) states that correlation design is procedures in quantitative research in which investigators measure the degree of association (relationship) between two or more variables using the statistical procedure of correlation analysis. Furthermore, Fraenkel, Wallen and Hyun (2012) states that correlational studies investigate the possibility of relationships between only two variables although investigations of more than two variables are common. The procedures were (1) College and University Classroom inventory (CUCEI) questionnaire from Treagust, Frasher, and Dennies (1986) was given to know students classroom environment, (2) the students' academic achievement was obtained by their cumulative GPA, (3) SPSS 16 was used in order to find out the correlation between the variables based on the result of questionnaire and cumulative GPA, and (4) the explanation and interpretation of the results were then discussed. Research site, sampling, and participants The population of this study was all the students of English education study program of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang in the academic year 2016-2017 which consisted of 580 students. Then, 366 students of English education study program of the second, fourth, and sixth semesters took part in the study as the sample by using convenience sampling. Data collection Before collecting the data, the two instruments in this study were checked for the validity and reliability. CUCEI questionnaire was a ready-made questionnaire and was already validated by Treagust, Frasher, and Dennies (1986). The questionnaire consists of 49 Likert-type items of positive and negative statement and consist of 4 Likert-scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (for positive statement), and 5 “strongly disagree” to 1 “strongly agree” (for negative statement). Cronbach alpha of .70 to .90 was obtained. It can be concluded the CUCEI was valid and reliable. Besides, documentation is an objective and reliable measure students’ academic achievement. Documentation validity was not checked because it has been validated ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 80 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi and reliable. To sum up, all the data were able to be used for each correlation and regression analysis. Data analysis Before analyzing the data obtained, normality and linearity test was conducted. If p> 0.05. If p< 0.05, it means the data are not normal. Kolmogorov-Smirnov was used to see the normality. The results of normality indicates that the data from each variable were all normal and appropriate for data analysis with coefficients of .192 for classroom environment and .058 for academic achievement. For linearity test, deviation of linearity was obtained. If probability is higher than .05, the two variables are linear. The results showed that the deviation from linearity between classroom environment and academic achievement (Sig) was 0.343 or higher than 0.05 which the result was linear. After all of data were found normal and linier, the correlation and regression analysis were conducted. The results from the instruments of both questionnaire and students’ GPA were calculated to find any potential correlation between variables through Pearson Product Moment Coefficient in SPSS with 5% significant level. Then, the significance of the correlation coefficient is used to determine by comparing the data of the coefficient (r data) in the level of significance of 5 percent in the table of product moment (r table). The correlation coefficient is significant if r table in the level of significance of 5 percent less than r data. In addition, according to Cohen, Manion, and Marison (2007), there is a correlation if p-value is higher than 0.20. In order to know the contribution of classroom environment and academic achievement of undergraduate EFL students’ of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang, regression analysis was applied. Findings and Discussion In this study, two kinds of instruments were used; questionnaire and documentation. First, from the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory Questionnaire, the result of students’ classroom environment showed that the maximum score was 220, and the lowest score was 103. The mean of classroom environment scores for the participants was 171.74 and the standard deviation was 18.047. This mean score (171.74) indicated that the level of classroom environment of English Education Study Program students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang was in average level. The descriptive statistical analysis of classroom environment for the participants is shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. Descriptive statistics of classroom environment N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Classroom_environment 345 103 220 171.74 18.047 Valid N (listwise) 345 It revealed from the questionnaire that the three levels of classroom environment were perceived by the students. The result showed that 115 students (33.3 %) were in high category, 208 students (60.3 %) belonged to average category, and 22 students (6.4 %) were in low category. The details are described in Table 2 below. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 81 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Table 2. Distribution of students’ classroom environment Score Interval Category Frequency Percentage 180 – 245 High 115 33.3 % 114 – 179 Average 208 60.3 % 49 - 113 Low 22 6.4 % Total 345 100 % Second, after the documentation of students’ academic achievement was obtained, the descriptive statistics showed that the highest cumulative GPA was 4.00 and the lowest was 1.45. The mean of academic achievement for the participants is 3.4503, and the standard deviation is 0.28468. The distribution of the result of the students’ cumulative GPA can be seen in Table 3 below. Table 3. Descriptive statistics of academic achievement N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Academic_Achievement 345 1.45 4.00 3.4503 .28468 Valid N (listwise) 345 After collecting the result of students’ academic achievement, I then categorized the students based on their cummulative GPA score. The result showed that 3 students (0.9 %) were in summa cumlaude category, 152 students (44%) were in cumlaude category, 175 students (50,7 %) were in very good category, 12 students (3.5 %) were in good category, and 3 students (0.9 %) were in enough category. From the data, it can be concluded that most of students’ academic achievement is above very good category. The distribution of the students’ academic achievement is presented in the following table: Table 4. Distribution of academic achievement Score Interval Category Frequency Percentage 4.00 Summa Cumlaude 3 0,9 % 3.51 – 3.99 Cumlaude 152 44 % 3.01 – 3.50 Very Good 175 50,7 % 2.51 – 3.00 Good 12 3,5 % 2.00 – 2.50 Enough 3 0,9 % Total 345 100 % Based on Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, the result indicated that there was a correlation between classroom environment and academic achievement. The correlation coefficient or the r-obtained (.296) was higher than r-table (0.1059). Then the level of probability (p) significance (sig.2-tailed) was .000. It means that p (.000) was lower than .05. It can be inferred that the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted and null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. In other words, there was a positive correlation between classroom environment and academic achievement. Based on the interval coefficient by Cohen, Manion, and Marisson (2007), the correlation coefficient or the r-obtained (.296) indicates that the level of correlation between variables is slight correlation. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 82 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Table 5. Correlations between classroom environment and academic achievement Classroom Environment Academic Achievement Classroom_Environment Pearson Correlation 1 .296 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 345 345 Academic_Achievement Pearson Correlation .296 ** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 345 345 ** ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Since there was a correlation between classroom environment and academic achievement, it can be inferred that classroom environment has influence on students’ academic achievement. Therefore, regression analysis was conducted to find out if classroom environment influenced academic achievement. The result of regression analysis is described in Table 6 below. Table 6. Contribution of classroom environment on students’ academic achievement Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardize d Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 2.648 .140 18.852 .000 Classroom_Environment .005 .001 .296 5.739 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Academic_Achievement The results indicated that classroom environment influenced students’ academic achievement with tvalue(5.739) which was higher than ttable(1.967) and Sig.value (.00) was lower than probability (.05). From the data above, it can be concluded that classroom environment significantly influenced the academic achievement of English Education Study Program Students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. In addition, to know the percentage of classroom environment influence on academic achievement, R-Square was obtained. The result of the analysis revealed that the R Square (R 2 ) was .088. It means that classroom environment gave effect in the level of 8.8% toward academic achievement. The percentage of the influence can be seen from Table.7 below. Table 7. The percentage of classroom environment contributing to students’ academic achievement Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .296 a .088 .085 .27232 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 83 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Table 7. The percentage of classroom environment contributing to students’ academic achievement Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .296 a .088 .085 .27232 a. Predictors: (Constant), Classroom_Environment In order to strengthen the value of this study, the interpretations were made based on the result of data analyses. According to the findings, there was a positive and significant correlation between classroom environment and academic achievement, and also an influence of classroom environment toward academic achievement of English Education Study Program Students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. In addition, the result of Pearson Product Moment Correlations showed that there was a positive correlation between classroom environment and academic achievement students of English Education Study Program at State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang (r- .296). This means that classroom environment had slight relation to their academic achievement. Though it was a slight correlation; classroom environment can give an impact toward students’ academic achievement. It is in line with Fraser (1998) who stated that the quality of the classroom environment is the significant determinant of students’ learning. Similarly, Bennipal and Singh (2014) also found that there was a positive relationship between academic achievement and classroom environment among adolescents of schools of Ludhiana District. In addition, a study conducted by Akomolafe and Adesua (2015) showed that there was a significant relationship between classroom environment and the academic performance. Besides, it also revealed that students’ classroom environment gave slight influence on students’ academic achievement. Students spend their time to learn mostly in the classroom. Classroom remains to be the main learning environment in an institution (Falsario, Muyong, Nuevaespana, 2014). Despite being the main learning environment, it does not guarantee that classroom environment will give more impact on students’ academic achievement. In this study, classroom environment gave only 8.8% effect towards academic achievement. It means that from 345 students, classroom environment influenced 30 students’ academic achievement, and 91,2 % was influenced by other factors. Those factors are gender difference, teacher’s education and teaching style, class environment, family education background (Mushtaq & Khan, 2012), age, peer influences, course assessment, class attendance, class size and entry qualification (Daniel, 2016). In addition, Farooq, Chaudhry, Shafiq, and Berhan (2011) stated that not only environment and personal characteristics of learners that play important roles on their academic success but also socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status is one of the most researched and debated factors among educational professionals that contribute towards the academic performance of students. The most prevalent argument is that the socioeconomic status of learners affects the quality of their academic performance. Moreover, the findings of research by Hijazi and Naqvi (2006) focused on student performance is affected by different factors, such as learning abilities because new paradigm about learning assumes that all students can and should learn at higher levels, but it should not be considered as constraint because there are other factors like race, gender, sex that can affect student’s performance. Therefore, the influence of classroom environment toward students’ academic achievement was not strong. Finally, this study found there was relationship and influence between classroom environment and academic achievement of English Education Study Program students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 84 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Conclusions From the findings and interpretations in discussed above, some conclusions could be presented. First, the correlation coefficient or the r-obtained (.296) was higher than r-table (0.1059), it means that the result indicated that there was a positive and significant relationship between classroom environment and academic achievement. Second, the findings revealed that there was a slight influence of classroom environment toward academic achievement of English Education Study Program Students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. It was shown that classroom environment gave only 8 % contribution to their academic performance. So, it can be inferred that the lower classroom environment as perceived by the students, the lower their academic achievement would be. References Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., Makmur, M., & Marzulina, L. (2018). “If our English isn’t a language, what is it?” Indonesian EFL Student Teachers’ Challenges Speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 Abrar, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). International graduate classroom discussion engagement, challenges, and solving-strategies: Stories from Indonesian students in a United Kingdom university. Asia-Pacific Collaborative education Journal, 12(1), 5-20. Akubue, A.U. (2001). Classroom organization and management: A 5-points strategy. Ibadan: Wisdom Publishers. Akomolafe, C.O, & Adesua, V.O. (2015). The classroom environment: A major motivating factor towards high academic performance of senior secondary school students in south west Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(34), 17-21. Ali, N., Jusoff, K., Ali, S., Mokhtar, N., & Salamat, A. S. A. (2009). The factor influencing students’ performance at University technology MARA Kedah, Malaysia. Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures, 3(4), 81-90. Ariesca, & Marzulina, L. 2016. Teaching reading narrative text by using window notes strategy to the eighth grade students of SMP Muhammadiyah 4 Palembang. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 3(1), 23-32. Azkiyah, S.N., & Mukminin, A. (2017). In search of teaching quality of student teachers: the case of one teacher education program in Indonesia. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 7(4), 105-124. Benipal, A. S., & Singh, J. (2014). A study of academic achievement of adolescents in relation to their perception of classroom environment in Punjab. Educationa confab, 3(7), 18-26. Brockman, M. S., & Russell, S. T. (2012). Academic Success. Retrieved from http://classroom.leanderisd.org/users/0955/docs/academic_success.pdf. Bucholz, J.L., & Sheffler, J.L. (2009). Creating a warm and inclusive classroom environment: Planning for all children to feel welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2(4), 1-13. Carpenters, B. O. (2006). Foundation of education, Benin: Ethiopia. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (6 th Eds.). (2007). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routlege. Daniel, A. (2016). Gender effect on academic performance of junior high school athlestes in Ghana: A case study of Komenda, Edina, Eguafo, and Abirem municipality in central region. International journal of physical education, sports and health, 3(2), 355-364. Daulta, M.S. (2008), Impact of home environment on the scholastic achievement of children. Journal of human ecology, 23(1), 75-77. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 http://classroom.leanderisd.org/users/0955/docs/academic_success.pdf ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 85 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Dewey, T. O. (2006). Infant and child in the culture of today. New York , NY: Harper and Row. Farooq, M. S., Chaudhry, A. H., Shafiq, M., & Berhan, G. (2011). Factors affecting students’ quality of academic performance: A case of secondary school level. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 7(2), 1-14. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun. (8 th Eds.). (2012). How to design and evaluate: research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Fraser, B., & Pickett, L. (2010). Creating and assessing positive classroom learning environments. Childhood Education, 3. Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity, and applications. Learning Environment Research, 1(1), 7-34. Gazelle, H. (2006). Class climate moderates peer relations and emotional adjustment in children with an early history of anxious solitude: A child X environment model. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1179–1192. Habibi, A., Sofwan, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). English teaching implementation in Indonesian pesantrens: teachers’demotivation factors. Indonesian Journal of English Teaching, 5(2), 199- 213. Hannah, R. (2013). The effect of classroom environment on student learning (Honors thesis, Western Michigan University, USA). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3380&context= honors_theses. Hadiyanto, Mukminin, A., Failasofah, Arif, N., Fajaryani, N., & Habibi, A. (2017). In search of quality student teachers in a digital era: Reframing the practices of soft skills in teacher education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 71-79. Haryanto, E., & Mukminin, A. (2012). The Global, the National and the Local goals: English Language Policy Implementation in an Indonesian International Standard School. Excellence in Higher Education Journal, 3(2), 69-78. Hisken, L. J. (2011). The correlation between self-esteem and student reading ability, reading level, and academic achievement. Master thesis, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, Missouri. Hijazi, S. T & Naqvi, S, M. M. R. (2006). Factors affecting students’ performance a case of private colleges. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology, 3(1), 1-10. Joanna, I. O. (2009). Relationship between students perception of psycho-social environment and achievement in geography.University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. Kamil, D., & Mukminin, A. (2015). Indonesian Students’ Multicultural Awareness in Homogeneously and Heterogeneously Populated Schools and Multicultural Education Policy. Asia-Pacific Collaborative Education Journal, 11 (1), 29-41. Kaur, (2001). Academic achievement as resulted to achievement motivation at senior secondary level. Dissertation, Panjab University, Chandigarh. Luschei, T. (2017). 20 years of TIMSS: Lessons for Indonesia. Indonesian Research Journal in Education |IRJE|, 1(1), 6-17. MacAulay, D. J. (1990). Classroom environment: A literature review. Educational psychology, 10(3) 239-253. Mokhtar, S. (2003). Classroom environment and academic performance at kolej Yayasan Pelajaran Mara Kuala Lumpur. Master thesis, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Mukminin, A., Kamil, D., Muazza, M., & Haryanto, E. (2017). Why teacher education? Documenting undocumented female student teachers’ motives in Indonesia: A case study. The Qualitative Report (USA), 22(1), 309-326. http://www.highbeam.com/ http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3380&context ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 86 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Mukminin, A., Rohayati, T., Putra, H. A., Habibi, A., & Aina, M. (2017). The Long Walk to Quality Teacher Education in Indonesia: Student Teachers’ Motives to become a Teacher and Policy Implications. Elementary Education Online,16(1), 35-59. Mukminin, A., & McMahon, B.J. (2013). International Graduate Students’ Cross-Cultural Academic Engagement: Stories of Indonesian Doctoral Students on American Campus. The Qualitative Report, 18 (69), 1-19. Mukminin, A., Haryanto, E., Makmur, Failasofah, Fajaryani, N., Thabran, Y., & Suyadi. (2013). The achievement ideology and top-down national standardized exam policy in Indonesia: Voices from local English teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 19-38. Mukminin, A., Ali, Rd. M., & Fadloan, M.J. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’ experiences in english academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher training program. The Qualitative Report, 20 (9), 1394-1407. Mukminin, A., Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, S.R. (2015). Stories from the frontlines: In-service teachers’ demotivating factors and policy recommendations. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 1(2), 40‐52. DOI: 10.17985/ijare.56085. Mushtaq, I. & Khan, S.N. (2012). Factor Affecting Students’ Academic Achievement. Global Journal of management and business research 12(9), 17-22. Nuthanap, G. (2007). Gender analysis of academic achievement among high school students. Master thesis, Dharwad university of agricultural sciences, Dharwad. Picus, L. O., Marion, S. F., Calvo, N., & Glenn, W. J. (2005). Understanding the relationship between student achievement and the quality of educational facilities: Evidence from Wyoming. Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 71-95. Sánchez-Escobedo, P., & Hollingworth, L. (2017). A model for evaluation of rural schools in developing countries. Indonesian Research Journal in Education |IRJE|, 1(1), 18-28. Siahi, E. A, & Maiyo, J. K. (2015). Study of the relationship between study habits and academic achievement of students: A case of Spicer higher secondary school, India. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 7(7), 134-141. Suleman, Q. & Hussain, I. (2014). Effects of classroom physical environment on the academic achievement score of secondary school in Kohat Division, Pakistan. International Journal of Learning and Development, 4(1), 71-82. Talton, E. L, & Simpson R. D. (1987). Relationship of attitude toward classroom environment with attitude toward achievement in science among tenth grade geography students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 507- 526. Treagust, D. F. & Fraser, B, J. (1986). Validity and use of a classroom environment instrument for higher education. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco. Wei, L. S., & Elias, H. (2011). Relationship between students’ perceptions of classroom environment and their motivation in learning English language. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(21), 240-250. William, D. L. (1997). Evaluating the university environment from a comprehensive system perspective: The college/university environment scale. Master thesis, Acadia University, Canada. Yan, X. (2006). Teacher talk and EFL in university classrooms. Dissertation Thesis, Chongqing Normal University and Yangtze Normal University, China. Ziegler, S.A., Cheryan, S., Plaut, V.C., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2014). Designing classroom to maximize students achievement. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1) 4-12. ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 87 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Speaking Self-Efficacy and EFL Student Teachers’ Speaking Achievement Tutik Alawiyah An English Instructor of Mindset English Center in Palembang, South Sumatera tutikalawiyah64@gmail.com Abstract This study was to find out the significant correlation between students’ speaking self-efficacy and their speaking achievement and to know the significant influence of speaking self-efficacy on their speaking achievement. The population of the study was 470 active students of English Education Study Program of Tarbiyah Faculty and Teaching Sciences at State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang in academic year 2017/2018. The sample of this study was 103 students of all the students in sixth semester chosen by using purposive sampling technique, but there were 96 students participating when the study was conducted. A questionnare was used to measure students’ speaking self-efficacy and a speaking test was conducted to know students’ speaking achievement. The collected data then were analyzed by using the correlational and regression analysis computerized with SPSS 22. Based on the analysis results, it was found that there was statistically significant positive correlation between self-efficacy and speaking achievement in p-output was 0.00 which was smaller that 0.05 (0.00<0.05). Besides, the correlational coefficient of the test was .349. Thus, the level of correlation was weak. This study also indicated that students’ speaking-self-efficacy influenced their speaking achievement with contribution 12.2%. Keywords: speaking self-efficacy, speaking achievement, student teacher Manuscript submitted: July 18, 2017 Manuscript revised: December 24, 2017 Accepted for publication: January 4, 2018 Introduction English has become one of international languages used by people from all around the world. It is widely accepted as the primary international language, and it is increasingly defined as a basic skill required of every student in every education system (Abrar & Mukminin, 2016; Habibi, Sofwan, & Mukminin, 2016; Haryanto & Mukminin, 2012). The ability to communicate in English can be achieved by mastering 4 language skills and one of which is speaking (Kamil & Mukminin, 2015; Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015; Mukminin, Masbirorotni, Noprival, Sutarno, Arif, & Maimunah, 2015). English speaking is one of the most important skills to be developed and enhanced as means of effective communication (Morozova, 2013). Speaking depends on the complexity of the information to be communicated (Brown & Yule, 2001). It will help people who come from different countries to be easier when making communication and to avoid missunderstanding among native or non-native English speakers. In the realm of education, particulary in the teaching and learning process, speaking plays an important role. White (2004) argues that language is an integral part of learning and oral language has a key role in classroom teaching and learning. It means that speaking will help teaching and learning more effective for mailto:tutikalawiyah64@gmail.com ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 88 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi teacher and students. It shows that English speaking ability is very important, not only in work field but also in teaching and learning in the English class. Nowadays, speaking has been given priority during English teaching and learning process. However, some problems may occur. Teachers and students of Indonesia still have difficulties in spoken language (Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015; Mukminin, Ali, & Ashari, 2015; Mukminin, Masbirorotni, Noprival, Sutarno, Arif, & Maimunah, 2015). Brown and Yule (2001) state that spoken language production, learning to talk in the foreign language, is often considered being one of the most difficult aspects of language learning for the teacher to help the students with. Sometimes, EFL learners do not feel confident in their speaking performance which ends up poorly. According to Young (1990), speaking class tends to make students feel nervous and anxious. Students in foreign language classroom generally report that speaking in the target language is the most anxiety producing experience (Ozturk and Gurbus, 2014). It is also supported by Horwitz who states that anxiety is “the subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the autonomic nervous system” (as cited in Abrar, Mukminin, Habibi, Asyrafi, Makmur, & Marzulina, 2018, p.131). The problem is because English is a foreign language so that students rarely practice it in their daily life. Other reason is that students lack of motivation to practice the language in daily conversation that they are too shy in conversation. Actually, there so many reasons that make students difficult in speaking because in Indonesia context, not all of the students during English speaking activities have the courage to speak (Mukminin, Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, 2015; Yusuf, Yusuf, Yusuf, & Nadya, 2017). For those reasons, the quality of English speaking skill in Indonesia is still not satisfactory. This situation is supported by English First English Proficiency Index (2015) that reported the average level of English language skill in some countries and the data of English speaking skill in Indonesia is in the rank of 32 from 70 participant countries. Based on EF EPI, Indonesia is in medium level (52.91). It indicates that Indonesians’ speaking skill is not good enough. To solve those problems, self-efficacy for students must be developed. Bandura (1997) mentions that self- efficacy concerns with someone’s perception about capability to create his/her own achievement. Self-efficacy is “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986). Self- efficacy describes individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over challenging demands and over their own functioning (Luszczynska, Gutierrez-Dona, & Schwarzer, 2005) Thus, it can be said that self-efficacy has an important role for students. Concerning with speaking self-efficacy in relation to their speaking skill, an informal interview with undergraduate EFL students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang was conducted, and it was found that some of them enjoyed speaking English, while others did not. They also were not sure to speak because sometimes they did not feel confident with their ability to interact with others. Even though, they had known that self-efficacy could affect their speaking achievement, but they did not know much about their speaking self-efficacy level. The students who had low self-efficacy in speaking reported that they would quickly lose confident and get negative outcome. The information that they gave was not clear and effective. Regarding the relationship between speaking self-efficacy and speaking perfomance, many studies have been undertaken to investigate those two variables. First, the correlation between self-efficacy belief, language performance and integration among Chinese Immigrant Newcomers was investigated by Dodds (2011), and it was found that there were significant positive correlations between English speaking self-efficacy beliefs and English speaking performance along with English listening self-efficacy beliefs and English performance. Also, Asakereh and Dehghannezhad (2015) found that there was relationship between Iranian EFL students’ satisfaction with speaking classes, speaking skills self-efficacy beliefs and speaking skills ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 89 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi achievement. Hence, it was critically essential to illuminate the correlation between self-efficacy of the students and their speaking achievement. The previous studies focused on the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, English performance, and speaking skills achievement. This study focused on the correlation between students’ speaking self-efficacy and their speaking achievement. It involved the state students of English Education Study Program of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. Therefore, the objectives of this study was to find out if there was significant correlation between speaking self-efficacy and speaking achievement of English Education Study Program Students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang and if their speaking self-efficacy influenced ther speaking achivement. Literature Review The concept of speaking Speaking has been regarded as one of the important parts in foreign language learning (Fang-peng & Dong, 2010). Generally, speaking is the ability to express something in a spoken language. It is simply concerning putting ideas into words to make other people grasp the message that is conveyed. In this study, the term “speaking” is one of four language skills related to language teaching and learning (Attamimi, 2014). Thornbury (2007) states that speaking is a speech production that becomes a part of daily activities which involves interaction. It means that speaking is any process in which people share information, idea, and feeling, so, if one able to communicate well, she or he will be able to interact with many people. In assesing students’ speaking achievement, there are some aspects should be measured.Those are fluency, pronounciation, grammar, vovabulary, and comprehension. Rozakis (2007) explains that communication can be classified into five categories, they are as follows: a. Interpersonal communication means communication with ourselves (e.g. evaluate feedback and construct meaning). b. Interpersonal communication with other people (e.g. talk with one or more people and work as equals). c. Small group communication means communication with three or more people (e.g. work together to research consensus, state belief as a group, and work with others to solve problems). d. Public communication means communication with large of group (e.g. share in front of the audience and speakers and receive less feedback). e. Mass communication means through mass media (e.g. communication through TV, radio, and so on). Self-efficacy theory Self-efficacy theory was articulated in 1995 by Albert Bandura. Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments (Bandura, 1995). Self-efficacy beliefs are an important aspect of human motivation and behavior as well as influence the actions that can affect one's life. More simply, self-efficacy is what an individual believes he or she can accomplish using his or her skills under certain circumstances (Snyder & Lopez, 2007). Self-efficacy (beliefs about one’s ability to accomplish specific tasks) influences the tasks employees choose to learn and the goals they set for themselves. Self-efficacy also affects employees’ level of effort and persistence when learning difficult tasks (Lunenburg, 2011). In addition, Lunenburg (2011) argues that self-efficacy has influence over people's ability to learn, their motivation and their performance, as people will often attempt to learn and perform only ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 90 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi those task for which they believe they will be successful. Along with goal-setting, self-efficacy is one of the most powerful motivational predictors of how well a person will perform at almost any endeavor. Methodology Research design This study used correlational research in terms of explanatory to find out the correlation among variables and explained and interpreted the results that may appear. The sample was given questionnaire and test in order to collect the data. Research site, sampling, and participants The population of this study was all active students of English Education Study Program of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang in the academic year 2017-2018 which consisted of 470 students. The sample was taken by using purposive sampling. It was a nonrandom sampling technique in which the sample was intentionally selected. I took the students who had already taken speaking class (Speaking I, Speaking II and Speaking III and Speaking IV). Nonetheless, most of the eight and ten semester students had already finished all of the lectures in the speaking class and they were working with their theses. Consequently, it was quite difficult to collect the data from them. For this reason, the sixth semester students were selected. As the result, there were about 103 students participating in this study. Data collection Self-efficacy questionnaire and speaking test were used to collect the data. The questionnaire was readymade from Asakereh & Dehghannezhad (2015). The remaining 28 items were piloted with one hundred Iranian EFL first year undergraduate students majoring in English language. The results of the pilot study indicated that the questionnaire enjoyed acceptable validity, with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy being 0.71. Thus, it was a valid and reliable questionnaire. For the speaking test, I asked three speaking experts from UIN Raden Fatah Palembang to be validators. The result showed that instrument of speaking test could be used in this research. Based on the result of the reliability test using Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, it showed that there were very strong correlation among them with correlation coefficient .968, .988, .,919. Therefore, the questionnaire and speaking test were valid and reliable to collect the data. Data analysis Firstly, to anlyze the data in this study, the data from the questionnaire were analyzed to determine students' self-efficacy. Since, there were 28 items, the maximum score was 140 and the minimum score was 28. Students’ scores were categorized into self-efficacy level: low (28-64), medioum (65-102), and high (103-140). Secondly, students’ speaking perfomance was analyzed by the three raters, those who validated the speaking test, by using speaking rubric from Brown (2004). There were five aspects of the speaking assessment. They were grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency and pronunciation. The scale of each aspect was from one to five. As a result, the highest point of all was 25 and the lowest score is 5. Since there were three raters, the average score from them determined the students’ speaking achievement. Third, a normality test was used to determine whether sample data drawn from a normally distributed population or not. Therefore, I applied Kolmogorov-Smirnov test by using SPSS 22. The data are distributed normally if the p-value is greater than 0.05 (p> 0.5). Fourth, test for linearity by using SPSS 22 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 91 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi was conducted in order to determine whether the data were linear or not. If the p- value (linearity) is less than 0.05 (p-value < 0.05), the data are linear. Finally, to analyze the data obtained from the questionnaire, and student’s speaking achievement test in order to see the correlation and influence between one variable and another variable, Pearson – Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used. If there was correlation, regression test was conducted to see the influence of students’ self-efficacy of their speaking achievement by comparing the score of F-obtain to F-table. If the score of F-obtain was greater than F-table, it means there was influence between speaking self-efficacy toward speaking achievement. To know if independent variable, self-efficacy, influenced or gave contribution to speaking achievement, regression analysis was done. Findings and Discussion Results of students’ self-efficacy and their speaking achievement The total active students in the sixth semester of English education study program were 103 students, but there were 96 students participating in this study because the others did not attend when this study was conducted. The 28 items of speaking self-efficacay questionnaire were used to investigate the participants’ self-efficacy. The result of the questionnaire revealed that the majority of students, 57 out of 96 (59.37%), had medium in self-efficacy and 39 students out of 96 (40.63%) had high self-efficacy. Last but not least, there was no one categorized as low self-efficacy. Furthermore, the descriptive statistical analysis of students’ self-efficacy was shown below. The maximum score was 138, the minimum score was 66, the mean score was 97.57, the standard deviation was 13.88., and the range of self-efficacy was 72. The result of the questionnaire revealed that the majority of students, 57 out of 96 (59.37%), had medium in self- efficacy and as much as 39 students out of 96 (40.63%), had high self-efficacy. Last but not least, there was no one categorized as low self-efficacy. Concerning about students’ speaking achievement, speaking test was administered. The result showed that 5 students had excellent speaking achievement, 81 students had good speaking achievement, 10 students had average speaking achievement, and there was no students had poor and very poor speaking achievement. In addition, the descriptive statistical analysis of students’ speaking achievement was also obtained, and the result showed that the maximum score was 21.67, the lowest score was 11,33, the mean score was 18.10, and the standard deviation was 1.84. This mean score indicated that the level of speaking achievement of participants is good. The results of normality test and linearity test In measuring normality test, 1 Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov is used. For the normality result of the data of students’ speaking achievement, the result showed tht the p-output was 0.93 which was higher than 0.05. Besides, the normality result of the data of students’ self-efficacy showed that the p-output was 0.187 which was also higher than 0.05. Thus, it can be concluded that all of the data were normal. For linearity test, linearity was obtained. If probability result is less than 0.05, the two variable are linear. Based on the result of linearity test, it was shown that the sig- value was 0.001 which was below 0.05 indicating that data were linear. Correlation between students’ self efficacy and their speaking achievement In this study, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to seek the significant correlation between students’ self-efficacy and their speaking achievement by using speaking self-efficacy questionnaire and speaking test. Regression analysis was also used to find out if students’ self-efficacy influenced students’ speaking achievement at English Education ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 92 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Study Program students of State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. The result of statistical analyses are presented in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 1. Correlation between students self-efficacy and their speaking achievement Speaking Self_Efficacy Speaking Pearson Correlation 1 ,349 ** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 N 96 96 Self_Efficacy Pearson Correlation ,349 ** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 N 96 96 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Based on the table above, it was found that the p-output was 0.00 which was smaller than 0.05 (0.00<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and alternative hypothesis was accepted. It indicated that there was statistically significant positive correlation between self-efficacy and speaking achievement. The correlational coefficient of the test was .349 in which based on Johnson and Christensen (2014), the level of correlation was weak. Influence of students’ self-efficacy on their speaking achievement Based on statistical analysis, the result indicated that the students’ speaking self-efficacy influenced speaking achievement significantly as t-value (3.606) was higher than t-table (1.662) and sig.value (.00) was lower than probability (.05). Therefore, it can be concluded that student’s self-efficacy significantly influenced their speaking achievement. The detail result can be seen in Table 2. Table 2. The regression analysis of students’ self-efficacy and speaking achievement Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 13.590 1.263 10.759 .000 Self_Efficacy .046 .013 .349 3.606 .000 In addition, to know how much students’ speaking self-efficacy influenced speaking achievement, R-square was obtained. The result is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Model summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .349 a .122 .112 1.73417 a. Predictors: (Constant), Self_Efficacy The result of the analysis revealed that the R-square was .122. It means that the students’ speaking self-efficacy gave significant effect in the level of 12.2% toward speaking achievement 87.8% was unexplained factors value. Based on the result of pearson product moment correlation, it was found that there was a positive and a significant correlation between self- efficacy and speaking achievemnt of undergraduate EFL students of English Education study program at State Islamic University of Raden fatah Palembang. It means that self-efficacy had relation to their performance in speaking achievement. The explanation to support this finding is ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 93 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi that from the beginning of the first semester, the participants had been involved in English speaking practices and assignments. Furthermore, it might be because EFL students of English Education Study Program of UIN are aware of their self-efficacy performance. Students did not compare their perceived competence with their peer’s ability in the same area. They assess themselves of how capable they were to accomplish a given task. Tilfarlioglu and Cinkara (2009) explained that it mediates the relationship between knowledge and action. In short, a student having knowledge and skill needed in language learning did not always succeed proficiently to perform it. It was because self-efficacy affects individual’s behavior in four ways: selecting choice of behavior, determining how much and how long of the effort, affecting an individual’s thought patterns and emotional reaction, and recognizing human as producers than foreteller. The finding in the study was in line with the study of Asakereh and Dehghannezhad (2015). They found that both student satisfaction with speaking classes and speaking skills self- efficacy beliefs had significant positive correlations with speaking skills achievement, with the latter being stronger. Results of this study showed that students with higher speaking skills self- efficacy are more likely to receive higher scores in speaking skills. Bandura (1986) stated that it can be due to the fact that self-belief in general can help students to participate in tasks, and students with high self-efficacy set higher goals and engage themselves in tasks which require considerable effort, persistence, and interest (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pajares, 1996). Moreover, self-efficacy beliefs determine the amount of effort, perseverance and resilience individuals spend on an activity, and self-efficacy-beliefs can affect an individual’s thought patterns and emotional reactions. In short, the total contribution of students’ self-efficacy and their speaking achievement showed significant correlated and influenced. However the unexplained factors also had contribution on students’s sepaking achievemnt. The findings of this study may have some pedagogical implications for lecturers, students, parents and next writers. Finally, this study was successful in investigating the correlation and the influence between students’ self-efficacy and their speaking achievement of Students English Education Study Program at State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. Conclusions From the summary of the answer of the research problems, it was found that the finding received the theory that students' speaking self-efficacy are factors that affect their speaking achievement significantly. The finding indicated that the null hypothesis was rejected while the alternative hypothesis was accepted as the correlation coefficient was .349 and the p-value was .000 which was smaller than .05 (.349 < .05). It can be implied that there was significant correlation between students' speaking self-efficacy and speaking achievement of EFL students at State Islamic University of Raden Fatah Palembang. Additionally, the linear regression analysis showed that students’ self-efficacy (12.2%) significantly influenced their speaking achievement. This study may have some pedagogical implications for their foreign language teachers, students, parents, and next writer. References Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., Makmur, M., & Marzulina, L. (2018). “If our English isn’t a language, what is it?” Indonesian EFL Student Teachers’ Challenges Speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss1/9 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 94 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Abrar, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). International graduate classroom discussion engagement, challenges, and solving-strategies: Stories from Indonesian students in a United Kingdom university. Asia-Pacific Collaborative education Journal, 12(1), 5-20. Ariesca, & Marzulina, L. 2016. Teaching reading narrative text by using window notes strategy to the eighth grade students of SMP Muhammadiyah 4 Palembang. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 3(1), 23-32. Attamimi, R, A. (2014). Effectiveness of cooperative learning in enhancing speaking skills and attitudes towards learning English. International Journal of Linguistic, 6(4), 1-19. Asakereh, A., & Dehghannezhad, M. (2015). Student satisfaction with EFL speaking classes: Relating speaking self-efficacy and skills achievement. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 345-363. Aydogan, H.,Akbarova, A., Dogan, A., Gonen, K., Tuncdemir, E., & Kerla, M. (2013) I can understand but cannot speak: Language anxiety for oral communication. Global Challenge International Journal of Linguistic and Translation, 1(2), 1-17. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales: Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescent. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom Practices. New York, NY: Pearson Education. Brown, H. D. (2004). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. San Fransisco, CA: Harper and Row Publisher. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (2001). Teaching the spoken language: An approach based on the analysisi of conversational English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of self-efficacy on motivation and performance of employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14), 80-88. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (6th Eds.). (2007). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching language to young learners. Cambrifge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Creswell, J, W. (2nd Eds.) (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Crystal, D. (2nd Eds.). (2003). English as global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cubukcu, F. (2008). A study on the correlation between self-efficacy and foreign language learning anxiety. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 4(1), 148-158. Dodds, J. (2011). The correlation between self-efficacy belief, language performance and intergration amongs chinese immigrant newcomers. Minnesota, MN: Hamline University. Education First. (2015). English proficiency index. Retrieved from http://media.ef.com/__/~/media/centralefcom/epi/downloads/full-reports/v5/ef-epi- 2015-english.pdf. Fang-peng, G., & Dong, Y. (2010). A study on college student’s anxiety to spoken English. Canadian Social Science, 6(2), 95-101. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (8th Eds.). (2012). How to evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gahungu, O. N., (2007). The relationships among strategy use, self-efficacy, and language ability in language ability in foreign language learners. Retrieved from Northern Arizona University. https://nau.edu/COE/CurriculumInstruction/_Admin/_Forms/Gahungu_Dissertation_ PDF/. http://media.ef.com/__/~/media/centralefcom/epi/downloads/full-reports/v5/ef-epi-2015-english.pdf http://media.ef.com/__/~/media/centralefcom/epi/downloads/full-reports/v5/ef-epi-2015-english.pdf https://nau.edu/COE/CurriculumInstruction/_Admin/_Forms/Gahungu_Dissertation_PDF/ https://nau.edu/COE/CurriculumInstruction/_Admin/_Forms/Gahungu_Dissertation_PDF/ ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 95 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Gunawan, M, A. (1st ed). (2013). Statistik: Untuk penelitian pendidikan. Yogyakarta, Indonesia : Parama Publishing. Habibi, A., Sofwan, M., & Mukminin, A. (2016). English teaching implementation in Indonesian pesantrens: teachers’demotivation factors. Indonesian Journal of English Teaching, 5(2), 199-213. Haryanto, E., & Mukminin, A. (2012). The Global, the National and the Local goals: English Language Policy Implementation in an Indonesian International Standard School. Excellence in Higher Education Journal, 3(2), 69-78. Heiman, G. W. (6th Eds.). (2011). Basic statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Hybels, S., & Weaver, R. L. (2007). Communicating effectively. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (4th Eds.). (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Jumana, K. (2016). Self-efficacy and academic performance in English. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(2), 79-83. Kamil, D., & Mukminin, A. (2015). Indonesian Students’ Multicultural Awareness in Homogeneously and Heterogeneously Populated Schools and Multicultural Education Policy. Asia-Pacific Collaborative Education Journal, 11 (1), 29-41. Khankeh, H., Ranjbar, M., Zavareh, D, K., Boroujeni, A, Z., & Johansson, E. (2015). Challenges in conducting qualitative reseacrh in health: A conceptual paper. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 20(6), 635-641. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kubiszyn, N. E., & Borich, P. R. (4th Eds.). (2007). Inspiring conversation. Brattleboro, VT: Pro Lingua. Lampert, J, N. (2007). The relationship of self-efficacy and self-concept to academic performance in a college sample: Testing competing models and measures (master's thesis, pacific university). Retrieved from: http://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/86. Lofgren K. (2013, August 4). Normality test using SPSS: How to check whether data are normally distributed [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiedOyglLn0. Lunenburg, F, C. (2010). Communication: The process, barriers and improving effectiveness. Journal of Schooling, 1(1), 1-11. Lunenburg, F, C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and performance. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 14(1), 1-6. Luszczynska, A., Gutierrez-Dona, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self-efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 80-89. Mahyuddin, R., Elias, H., Cheong, L, S., Muhamad, M, P., Noordin, N., & Abdullah, M, C. (2006). The relationship betweeen students’ self-efficacy and their English language achievement. Journal Pendidikan, 21, 61-71. Makmur, Ismiyati, Y., Mukminin, A., & Verawaty. (2016). In search of good student teachers in writing skill: The impact of different task variance on EFL writing proficiency. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 2 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 Mettasari, G. (2013). Self-esteem, achievement motivation, self- efficacy and students’ anxiety in speaking. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 46(2),163-173. Morozova, Y. (2013). Methods of enhancing speaking skills of elementary level students. Translation Journal, 17(1), 1. http://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/86 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiedOyglLn0 http://dx.doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901 ISSN |2355-3669| E-ISSN |2503-2518| Volume 5| Number 1|June 2018| 96 Available online at http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/edukasi Mukminin, A., & McMahon, B.J. (2013). International Graduate Students’ Cross-Cultural Academic Engagement: Stories of Indonesian Doctoral Students on American Campus. The Qualitative Report, 18 (69), 1-19. Mukminin, A., Ali, Rd. M., & Fadloan, M.J. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’ experiences in english academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher training program. The Qualitative Report, 20 (9), 1394-1407. Mukminin, A., Noprival, Masbirorotni, Sutarno, Arif, N., & Maimunah. (2015). EFL Speaking anxiety among senior high school students and policy recommendations. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(3), 217-225. Mukminin, A., Muazza, Hustarna, & Sari, S.R. (2015). Stories from the frontlines: In-service teachers’ demotivating factors and policy recommendations. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 1(2), 40‐52. DOI: 10.17985/ijare.56085. Puriyatno, D. (2010). Paham analisa statistic data dengan SPSS. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: MediaKom. Radhakrishma, R, B. (2007). Tips for developing and testing questionnaires/instruments. Journal of Extension, 45(1), 1. Ricards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited. Rozakis, M. (2007). The complete idiot’s guide to public speaking. Indianapolis: Alpha Books, Inc. Saeidi, M. & Farshchi, E, E. (2012). The effect of teaching communication strategies on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking self-efficacy in content-based courses. Applied Linguistics Journal, 9(2), 220-238. Sundari, H., & Dasmo. (2014). The effect of speaking self-efficacy and gender in speaking activities. Bahasa and Sastra, 14(2), 205-2017. Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediational analyses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57,152-171. Thompson, N. (2003). Communication and language: A handbook of theory and practice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Thornbury, S. (2007). How to teach speaking. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Tilfarlioglu, F.T., & Cinkara, E. (2009). Self- efficacy in EFL: differences among proficiency groups and relationship with success. Novitas Royal, 3(2), 129-142. Yusuf, Q., Yusuf, Y., Yusuf, B., & Nadya, A. (2017). Skimming and scanning techniques to assist EFL students in understanding English reading texts. Indonesian Research Journal in Education |IRJE|, 1(1), 43-57. Zimmerman, B, J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(25), 82-91.