Siti M. & Kaswan: The Influence.. 1 THE INFLUENCE OF STUDENT’S LEARNING STYLE ON THEIR SPEAKING ABILITY AT CLASS IX OF MTs MUSLIMIN PEUSING BANDUNG BARAT Siti Marwiyah & Kaswan STKIP Siliwangi Bandung ABSTRACT In Indonesia, particularly in MTs Muslimin Peusing, it is still very difficult for students to communicate with other people in English effectively. Furthermore the ineffective teaching learning activities can adversely influence students’ speaking ability . One of important factors contributing to this phenomenon is that the teacher's teaching style that does not match the learning styles of learners. The objectives of the research are to identify whether students' learning styles influence of speaking ability at class IX of MTs Muslimin Peusing Bandung Barat and to find out which learning style is the best in learning speaking skill. In the research design, the writer used quantitative research, or more specially the survey method which consist of two classes (40 students) as the sample. Questionnaire and test were as the instruments. Data analysis shows that there is no significant difference among students’ speaking ability based on their learning styles because the data clearly reports that all the result of significance value are higher than 0.05. Meanwhile, to have the significant difference, the sig, value or significance value should lower than 0.05. The conclusion is the best speaking score is individual learner from other learning styles, and there is no significant difference between learning style on their speaking ability. Keywords : Learning Styles, Speaking ability. A. Introduction Among the four language skills, speaking is increasingly important in second/foreign language setting. However in Indonesia it is very difficult for students to communicate with other people in English effectively. This situation almost the same with the case founded in China. Hu and Wang in Robertson and Nunn (2011) describe this situation of English learning in China as “dumb English”. “Dumb English” refers to the situation when student want or need to communicate in English but they cannot perform the task successfully due to such possible reasons as tension shyness and/or lack Eltin Journal Vol 3/1, April 2015 2 of effective communication skills in English. One factor is the in ability of students to speak English teachers still emphasize learning the rules of language, when it should be more emphasis on the aspects of the English language as a communication tool. As a result, many students are difficult to use English as a mean of communication with the various reasons that they are bringing. This weakness then the students are not trained to properly pronounce vocabularies. Apart from the above problems, causes less effective speaking skills students are learning problems that are less effective. One important element in it is the teacher's teaching style that does not match the learning styles of learners. Each student has its advantages and each, including when receiving lessons from his teacher, the students will be better deficiencies we take for granted, and the excess we develop in order to become a feat, as described by Ghufron and Risnawita (2010: 8) : Individual is a unity, each of which has a characteristic trademark, and therefore no two individuals are alike. With eachotheris different. Individual differences can be seen from two aspects, namely in terms of horizontal and vertical aspects. Horizontal difference that each individual is different from another individual in the psychological aspect. As the level of intelligence, ability, interest, memory, emotion, will, personality, and so on. While the difference in terms of vertical, that no two individuals are alike in jasmaniyah aspects, such as shape, size, strength, and endurance. Between students with each other different personality, intelligence, physical, social, and emotional. Some are slow and some are fast learning. Differences also occur in individual learning styles. There are individuals that are better suited to certain learning styles, and there are individuals who do not fit with the style. The objectives of the research are : (1) To identify whether students' learning styles influence speaking ability at class IX of MTs Muslimin Peusing Bandung Barat and (2) To find out which learning style is the best in student’s speaking ability. A. Literature Review 1. Learning Style Learning style is the ways of students in absorbing and understanding the information or idea. In the other side, it could be said that learning styles is the preference ways in learning. According to Kolb in Doris B. Matthews (1996: 249), he emphasized “Learning style is characterized by the degree to which the learner emphasizes abstractness over concreteness in perceiving information and the degree to which he or she emphasizes action over reflection in processing information in a learning situation.” Meanwhile Hilliard (2011: 4) stated “Learning styles are the characteristic ways in which an individual acquires, perceives, and processes information.” Siti M. & Kaswan: The Influence.. 3 Meanwhile, based on Dunn and Dunn (2011: 4) statement, “Learning style is the way in which each learner begins to concentrate on, process, absorb and retain new and difficult information.” Based on the explanation that was adapted from the C.I.T.E. Learning styles Instrument, Murdoch Teacher Center, Wichita, Kansas 67208 (1984, Joy Reid), that there are six of learning style preferences: a. Visual Major Learning Style Preference Students learn well from seeing word in books, on the chalkboard, and in workbooks. Students remember and understand information and instructions better if students read them. Students don’t need as much oral explanation as an audiotory learner, and students can often learn alone, with a book. Students should take notes of lectures and oral directions if students want to remember the information. b. Audiotory Major Learning Style Preference Students learn from hearing words spoken and from oral explanations. Students may remember information by reading aloud or moving their lips as they read, especially when students are learning new material. Students get benefit from hearing audio tapes, lectures, and class discussions. Students get benefit from making tapes to listen to, by teaching others students, and by conversing with their teacher. c. Kinesthetic Major Learning Style Preference Students learn best by experience, by being involved physically in classroom experiences. Students remember information well when students actively participate in activities, field trips, and role playing in the classroom. A combination of stimuli—for example, an audiotape combined with an activity—will help students understand new material. d. Tactile Major Learning Style Preference Students learn best when students have the opportunity to do “hands on” experiences materials. That is, working on experiments in a laboratory, handling and building models, and touching and working with material provide students with the most successful learning situation. Writing notes or instructions can help you remember information, and physical involvement in class related activities may help students understand new information. e. Group Major Learning Style Preference Students learn more easily when students study with at least one other student, and students will be more successful completing work well when students work with others. Students value group interaction and class work with other students, and students remember information better when students work with two or three classmates. The stimulation you receive from group work helps you learn and understand new information. f. Individual Major Learning Style Preference Eltin Journal Vol 3/1, April 2015 4 Students learn best when you work alone, and students remember information students learn by them self. Students understand new material best when students learn it alone, and students make better progress in learning when students work by them self. 2. Speaking Ability There are lots of different definitions of speaking. Chaney (1998: 13), in addition, considered speaking as a process: “Speaking is the process of building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal or non verbal symbol in a variety of contexts.” Harmer (2001: 38) adds that speaking happens when two people are engaged in talking to each other and they are sure that they are doing it for good reason. Their reason may be that they want to say something, they have some communicative purposes, and they select from their language store. In language teaching and learning, speaking is considered a skill to practice and master. In this light, Nunan (2003: 48) puts it that “Speaking is the productive oral skill. It consists of producing systematic verbal utterance to convey meaning”. The discussion above concludes that speaking is the ability to express something in a spoken language. Speaking is concerning to put the ideas into words to make other people grasp the message that is conveyed. In this study, the term “speaking” will be used to refer to a skill related to language teaching and learning. If students want to be able to speak fluently in English, they need to be able pronounce phonemes correctly, use appropriate stress and intonation patterns and speak in connected speech. For more details elements of speaking skills to review the related criteria of speaking ability to measure one’s speaking skills that are accuracy, fluency, and appropriateness. a. Accuracy Recognizably, accuracy is one of the most important criteria to measure one’s linguistic ability and to shelter language users from communication breakdowns. According to Richards (1992: 31), accuracy concerns “The ability to produce grammatically correct sentence.” In other words, accuracy in language means grammatical accuracy only. Nevertheless, in Thornbury (2005), the terms “accuracy” seems to cover more than that. Specifically, speaking English accurately means doing without or with few errors on not only grammar but vocabulary and pronunciation, as well. He also sets the clear scale for assessment of accuracy: (1) Grammar: Students use correct words order, tenses, tense agreement, etc. Students do not leave out articles, prepositions or difficult tenses, (2) vocabulary: Students have a range of vocabulary that corresponds to the syllabus year list and uses words you have taught, and (3) Pronunciation: Students speak and most people understand. b. Fluency Siti M. & Kaswan: The Influence.. 5 Fluency is also used as a criterion to measure one’s speaking competence. Speaking fluently means being able to communicate one’s ideas without having to stop and think too much about what one is saying. Richards (1992: 141) defines fluency as “the features which gives speech the qualities of being natural and normal.” More specifically, Thornbury (2005) points out the criteria for assessing fluency. They are as follows: (1) Lack of hesitation: Students speak smoothly, at a natural speech. They do not hesitate long and it is easy to follow what they are saying. (2) Length: Students can put ideas together to form a message or an argument. They can make not only the simplest of sentence pattern but also complex ones to complete the task. (3) Independence: Students are able to express their ideas in a number of ways, keep talking and ask questions, and many more to keep the conversation going. c. Appropriateness According to Winski (1998: 4), a complete definition of appropriateness is not practically possible. Intuitively, an utterance is appropriate in contact if it is not unexpectedly conspicious (marked) in some way. Appropriateness is also used as a criterion to measure one’s speaking competence. According to Spratt, Pulverness, and Williams (2005), appropriacy in speaking shows the different levels of formality, that is more or less relaxes ways of saying things. It is important to use the level of formality that suits a situation. In speaking activity, appropriateness is very important to be mastered by the students. It is because it will indicate whether the students really understand what they said or not. The appropriateness in speaking in formal, informal and neutral situations in a conversation will show their ability in understanding the context and situation of the conversation in English. B. Research Methodology In the research design, the writer used quantitative research. 1. Research Method In this research, the writer used survey method. Survey method or can be called as survey research design. Survey research design are procedures in quantitative research in which investigators administer a survey to a sample or to the entire population of people to describe the attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or characteristics of the population (Creswell, 2012: 376). The population of this study is the ninth grade students of MTs Muslimin Peusing Bandung Barat years 2014-2015. At class IX consist of two classes they were IXa and IXb. There were 40 students. Then the writer used total sampling, because the number of population is less. So all of population become sample. They were 40 students as sample. They were IXa and IXb. 2. Instruments Eltin Journal Vol 3/1, April 2015 6 In this research, the writer used two kinds of instruments were used in collecting data; questionnaire and test. a. The questionnaire was adopted from Joy M. Reid in Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom book. b. To know the student’s speaking ability, the students were asked to speak in front of the class about procedural text how to make sweet ice tea without text. 3. Data Collection and Techniques Louis Cohen, Laewrence Manion and Keith Morrison (2007: 501) Quantitative data analysis is a powerful research form, emanating in part from the positivist tradition. It is often associated with large scale research, but can also serve smaller scale investigations, with case studies, action research, correlational rsearch and experiment. Firstly, the writer used questionnaire to collect student’s learning style data, and she used test to collect the student’s speaking ability. Then, the second step is, descriptive and inferential statistics were used for the further analyzing score of speaking ability. According to L.R Gay, Geoffrey E. Mills and Peter Airasian (2009: 223) Descriptive statistics are the mean, which indicates the average performance of a group on a measure of variable, and standard deviation which indicates the spread of a set of scores around mean-that is, whether the scores relatively close together and clustered around the mean or widely spread out around the mean. Numerical analysis can be performed using software, for example the Statistical package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Louis Cohen, Laewrence Manion and Keith Morrison (2007: 501). Emzir pointed that the statistical inferential was used to know the significance differences among the groups, by using ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) formula to make comparison scores among variables (2008: 121). C. Results and Discussion 1. Questionnaire, Speaking Ability Scores and Their Influence Table 1 Scores of Questionnaires and Test of Learning Style Students Speaking Ability Scores Learning Styles 1 90 Group 2 90 Group 3 80 Group 4 80 Visual 5 55 Group 6 50 Group Siti M. & Kaswan: The Influence.. 7 Students Speaking Ability Scores Learning Styles 7 95 Kinesthetic 8 60 Auditory 9 65 Group 10 95 Individual 11 65 Visual 12 90 Visual 13 40 Kinesthetic 14 40 Visual 15 70 Group 16 40 Individual 17 40 Kinesthetic 18 90 Individual 19 25 Visual 20 90 Kinesthetic 21 65 Visual 22 75 Tactile 23 40 Tactile 24 40 Kinesthetic 25 90 Group 26 50 Group 27 80 Kinesthetic 28 30 Tactile 29 95 Individual 30 25 Audiothory 31 80 Audiothory 32 30 Visual 33 40 Tactile 34 40 Group 35 45 Individual 36 65 Audiothory 37 45 Kinesthetic 38 65 Individual 39 65 Tactile 40 65 Audiothory Eltin Journal Vol 3/1, April 2015 8 The result of each student learning styles was known. The data showed that 7 students are visual, 5 students are auditory, 7 students are kinesthetic, 5 students are tactile, 10 students are group and 6 students are individual. The percentages of the students’ learning styles are visual 17,5 %, audiothory are 12,5 %, kinesthetic are 17,5 %, tactile 12,5 %, group are 25 % and individual 15 %. The data in table 1 represents score of speaking ability, it shows that the highest score is 95 and the lowest speaking score is 25. Descriptive Statistics Table 2. Descriptive Statistics Variables N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Visual (V) 7 25.00 90.00 56.4286 9.49400 25.11877 Auditory (A) 5 25.00 80.00 59.0000 9.13783 20.43282 Kinesthetic (K) 7 40.00 95.00 61.4286 9.68026 25.61157 Tactile (T) 5 30.00 75.00 50.0000 8.51469 19.03943 Group (G) 10 40.00 90.00 68.0000 5.97216 18.88562 Individual (I) 6 40.00 95.00 71.6667 10.30102 25.23225 Valid N (listwise) 5 The data shows that total of students is 40, means of variables V, A, K, T, G, I, are 56.43; 59.00; 61.43; 50.00; 68.00; 90; 95 respectively, and the grand mean is 62.00. The maximum score is 95.00 obtained by students with kinesthetic and group learning styles, the minimum score is 25 obtained by students with visual and auditory learning styles. Test of Normality Table 3. Tests of Normality Variabel Kolmogorov-Smirnova (K-S) Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Visual (V) Auditory (A) Kinesthetic (K) Tactile (T) Group (G) Individual (I) .205 7 .200* .925 7 .511 .320 5 .105 .854 5 .207 .311 7 .040 .770 7 .021 .300 5 .160 .891 5 .362 .178 10 .200* .898 10 .208 .266 6 .200* .837 6 .122 Siti M. & Kaswan: The Influence.. 9 Based on Table 3, it can be concluded that five variables (V, A, T, G, I) are normal because sig K-S and S-W exceeds 0.05. Meanwhile, variable K is not normal because sig K-s and S-W is below 0.05. To analyse the data further, the data need analyzing through test of homogeneity of variances Test of Homogeneity Of Variances Table 4 Test of Homogeneity of Variances Speaking Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 1.151 5 34 .353 Based on Table 4, it can be concluded that the data is equal because Sig (0.353) exceeds 0.05. It is because the data is equal, the data was analysed through one-way ANOVA (Corder & Foreman, 2014; Pallant, 2007). One Way Anova Table 5 ANOVA Speaking Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1905.238 5 381.048 .752 .591 Within Groups 17234.762 34 506.905 Total 19140.000 39 Based on Table 5, it can be concluded that thre are no significant differences among the mean scores on speaking ability for the six groups because sig (0.591) exceeds 0.05. To find out which group is better, or which group is the best, the data was analysed through multiple comparisons. Eltin Journal Vol 3/1, April 2015 10 Multiple Comparisons Table 6 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Speaking Turkey HSD (I) LS (J) LS Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.00 2.00 -2.57143 13.18317 1.000 -42.3614 37.2186 3.00 -5.00000 12.03453 .998 -41.3231 31.3231 4.00 6.42857 13.18317 .996 -33.3614 46.2186 5.00 -11.57143 11.09529 .900 -45.0597 21.9168 6.00 -15.23810 12.52594 .826 -53.0444 22.5682 2.00 1.00 2.57143 13.18317 1.000 -37.2186 42.3614 3.00 -2.42857 13.18317 1.000 -42.2186 37.3614 4.00 9.00000 14.23945 .988 -33.9781 51.9781 5.00 -9.00000 12.33172 .977 -46.2201 28.2201 6.00 -12.66667 13.63323 .936 -53.8151 28.4817 3.00 1.00 5.00000 12.03453 .998 -31.3231 41.3231 2.00 2.42857 13.18317 1.000 -37.3614 42.2186 4.00 11.42857 13.18317 .952 -28.3614 51.2186 5.00 -6.57143 11.09529 .991 -40.0597 26.9168 6.00 -10.23810 12.52594 .962 -48.0444 27.5682 4.00 1.00 -6.42857 13.18317 .996 -46.2186 33.3614 2.00 -9.00000 14.23945 .988 -51.9781 33.9781 3.00 -11.42857 13.18317 .952 -51.2186 28.3614 5.00 -18.00000 12.33172 .691 -55.2201 19.2201 6.00 -21.66667 13.63323 .611 -62.8151 19.4817 5.00 1.00 11.57143 11.09529 .900 -21.9168 45.0597 2.00 9.00000 12.33172 .977 -28.2201 46.2201 3.00 6.57143 11.09529 .991 -26.9168 40.0597 4.00 18.00000 12.33172 .691 -19.2201 55.2201 6.00 -3.66667 11.62646 1.000 -38.7581 31.4248 6.00 1.00 15.23810 12.52594 .826 -22.5682 53.0444 2.00 12.66667 13.63323 .936 -28.4817 53.8151 3.00 10.23810 12.52594 .962 -27.5682 48.0444 4.00 21.66667 13.63323 .611 -19.4817 62.8151 5.00 3.66667 11.62646 1.000 -31.4248 38.7581 Based on Table 6, it can be concluded that no group is better than the other(s). In addition, no group is the best of all for two reasons. First, asterisk sign (*) was found on mean difference (I-J). Second, the significance value (sig) exceeded 0.05 (Pallant, 2007) D. Conclussion and Suggestion 1. Conclusions To answr the research questions, the drew two conclusions: a) There was no significant influence of learning styles on the students’ speaking styles. b) There was not the best learning style which could be employed in learning speaking skills. Siti M. & Kaswan: The Influence.. 11 2. Suggestions In spite of the fact that, there were no significant differences among the mean scores of groups of students with different learning styles, English teachers should use the teaching techniques representing “PAKEM” (active, creative, effective, and fun learning). In addition, this research problem should be further investigated with bigger sample to obtain better and more accurate result. References Chaney, A.L, & T.L Burk. (1998). Teaching oral communication in grades k-8. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Cohen, L, Lawrence Manion & Keith Morrison. (2007). Research methods in education. London & New York : Routledge. Corder, Gregory & Dale I. Foreman. (2014). Nonparametric Statistics: A Step by Step Approach. John Wiley & Sons. David Kolb, in Doris B. Matthews. (1996). An investigation of learning styles and perceived academic achievement for high school students, Taylor and Francis Group. Ghufron, M. Nur, S. Risnawita, S. and Rini. (2010). Teori-teori psikologi. Yogyakarta: Ar-ruz Media Group. Harmer,J. (2001). The Practice of English language teaching(third ed). New York : Longman. Hilliard in Abidin, Zainal & Hayati, Rita. (2011). The correlation between learning style and listening achievement of english education study program students of sriwijaya university, Surabaya : Jurnal Holistics. Kaswan & Suprijadi, D. (2013). Research in english education. Bandung: Putra Praktisi. Kolb, David, in Doris B. Matthews.(1996). An investigation of learning styles and perceived academic achievement for high school students. Francis: Taylor and Francis Group. Pallant, Julie. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual. McGraw Hill: Open University Press. Reid, C.I.T.E. Learning style instruments, Kansas Murdoch Teacher. Robertson, Paul & Nunn, Roger. (2011). The asian efl journal professional teaching article Ja: Asian EFL Journal Press. Robertson, Paul & Nunn, Roger. (2011). The Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Article. Ja: Asian EFL Journal Press. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. England : Pearson Educational Limited. Isi Jurnal Vol 3 No 1.pdf Chapter 1 - Siti.pdf Chapter 5 - Angga Maulana.pdf