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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

The results of normality test and linearity test
Normality test and linearity test were conducted prior to data analysis through SPSS 16

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

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.

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

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

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