57
CHAPTER IV
DATA FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter discussed the result of study. It consisted of the data finding
and discussion. In data finding the research display the data which was found in
the field and in discussion the researcher explained the result of the data by using
correlation Pearson product moment formula whether there is correlation or there
is no correlation between two variables.
A. DATA FINDINGS
1. The Result from Part One of the Questionnaire
Table 4 The Respondents’ General Information
Characteristic Frequency Percentage
Gender
Female
50
76.92
Male 15 23.08
Total 65 100.00
Age
<19
4
6.15
19-20 57 87.70
>20 4 6.15
Total 65 100.00
Year of English Learning
3-5 years
21
32.31
5-10 years 38 58.46
More than 10 years 6 9.23
Total 65 100.00
58
From Table 4.1, approximately 76.92 percent of the respondents are female.
More than half of the students are 19-20 years of age (87.70%). The majority of
students (58.46%) have studied English 5-10 years.
2. The Six Categories of Strategies
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Strategy Use in Individual Item of
Determination
Item
Degree of frequency
Always
use it
Usually use
it
Sometimes
use it
Seldom
use
It
Never
use
it
X ̅
F % F % F % F % F % F
1. Saya
menggunakan
kamus dua
bahasa untuk
menterjemahka
n bahasa
Inggris ke
dalam bahasa
Indonesia.
6 9.23 29 44.62 25 38.46 5 7.69 0 0.00 2.55
2. Saya
menggunakan
ilustrari
gambar dalam
buku untuk
menemukan
arti kata yang
dimaksud.
2 3.08 7 10.77 24 36.92 30 46.1
5
2 3.08 1.65
3. Saya belajar
arti sebuah
kata berbahasa
Inggris dengan
mengidentifika
si jenis/kelas
kata tersebut.
2 3.08 17 26.15 28 43.08 18 27.6
9
0 0.00 2.05
59
According to determination strategies, the results show that respondents
most frequently use the strategy item 1; “I use a bilingual dictionary to help me
translate into Thai language.” to find the meaning of new words (X̅ = 2.55).
Meanwhile, the least use strategy was item 2; “I use pictures illustrated in the
textbook to find the word meanings” (X̅ = 1.65).
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics Use in Individual Item of Social Strategies
(Discovery)
Item
Degree of frequency
Always
use it
Usually
use
it
Sometimes
use it
Seldom
use
It
Never use
it X ̅
F % F % F % F % F % F
4. Saya minta
tolong guru
untuk
menterjemahka
n kata
berbahasa
Inggris ke
dalam bahasa
Indonesia.
0 0.00 7 10.77 17 26.15 31 47.70 10 15.38 1.32
5. Saya minta
tolong guru
untuk memuat
kata yang tidak
saya ketahui
artinya ke
dalam sebuah
kalimat, untuk
membantu saya
memahami arti
kata tersebut.
2 3.08 11 16.92 17 26.15 26 40.00 9 13.85 1.55
6. Saya bertanya
kepada teman
sekelas.
6 9.23 28 43.08 26 40.00 5 7.69 0 0.00 2.54
7. Saya
mengetahui
beberapa kata
baru jika belajar
kelompok.
13 20.00 28 43.08 19 29.23 4 6.15 1 1.54 2.74
60
According to the frequency of social strategies for discovery, the results
show that to interact with other people in vocabulary learning, the strategy, which
the student use most frequently was item 7; “I know some new words when
working in group works.” (X̅ = 2.74). While the least used strategy was item 4; “I
ask the teacher to translate the words into Indonesian.” (X̅ = 1.32).
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Strategy Use in Individual Item of Social
(Consolidation)
Item
Degree of frequency
Always
use it
Usually
use
it
Sometimes
use it
Seldom
use
it
Never use
it X ̅
F % F % F % F % F % F
8. Saya melatih
bahasa Inggris
dalam kegiatan
kelompok.
8 12.31 15 23.08 24 36.92 17 26.15 1 1.54 2.18
9. Saya minta
bantuan native
speaker.
3 4.62 16 24.61 17 26.15 14 21.54 15 23.08 1.66
10. Saya belajar
budaya Negara-
negara
berbahasa
Inggris.
2 3.08 8 12.31 18 27.69 28 43.07 9 13.85 1.47
To promote vocabulary acquisition, the respondents use the Social
strategies for consolidation most frequently, by the item 8; “I practice English in
group work activities.” which had the highest mean score of 2.18. The strategy
which the respondents use least frequently was item 10; “I learn words about the
culture of English speaking countries.” with the lowest mean score by 1.47.
61
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of Strategy Use in Individual Item of Memory
Item
Degree of frequency
Always
use it
Usually
use
it
Sometimes
use it
Seldom
use
it
Never use
it X ̅
F % F % F % F % F % F
11. Saya
menuliskan kata
baru dalam
kalimat
sehingga saya
mudah
mengingatnya.
6 9.23 16 24.61 25 38.46 17 26.15 1 1.54 2.14
12. Saya belajar
mengeja kata
baru.
5 7.69 26 40.00 24 36.92 9 13.85 1 1.54 2.38
13. Saya
menggunakan
peragaan fisik
ketika belajar
kata baru.
3 4.62 15 23.08 18 27.69 22 33.84 7 10.77 1.77
14. Saya
mengucapkan
kata dengan
nyaring ketika
belajar.
7 10.77 29 44.61 21 32.31 6 9.23 2 3.08 2.51
The results from the table show that the Memory strategy which the
respondents most frequently use for storing and retrieving new information was
item 14; “I speak words out loud when studying.” (X̅ = 2.51). Meanwhile the least
use strategy by the respondents was item 13; “I use physical actions when
learning words.” (X̅ = 1.77).
62
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of Strategy Use in Individual Item of
Cognitive
Item
Degree of frequency
Always
use it
Usually
use
it
Sometimes
use it
Seldom
use
it
Never use
it X ̅
F % F % F % F % F % F
15. Saya berulang
kali melatih
kata baru.
7 10.77 37 56.92 18 27.69 3 4.62 0 0.00 2.74
16. Saya menulis
kata baru dalam
sebuah flash
card agar saya
bisa
mengingatnya.
4 6.15 16 24.61 5 7.69 18 27.69 12 18.46 1.42
17. Saya belajar
vocabulary
dengan
mendengarkan
vocabulary
CDs.
1 1.54 16 24.61 23 35.38 11 16.92 14 21.54 1.67
18. Saya mencatat
vocabulary dari
soundtrack film
berbahasa
Inggris dalam
laptop saya.
7 10.77 22 33.85 22 33.85 12 18.46 2 3.08 2.31
19. Ketika saya
mencoba untuk
mengingat
sebuah kata,
saya menulis
atau
mengucapkann
ya berulang-
ulang.
11 16.92 33 50.77 16 24.61 2 3.08 3 4.62 2.72
20. Saya membuat
kartu
vocabulary dan
membawanya
kemanapun
saya pergi.
4 6.15 4 6.15 17 26.15 22 33.85 18 27.70 1.29
63
Table 4.5 shows that to develop automatic vocabulary retrieval, the
Cognitive strategy that the students use most frequently, was item 15; “I
repeatedly practice new words.” (X̅ =2.74), while the strategy “I make vocabulary
cards and take them with me wherever I go.” was least used (X̅ = 1.29).
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of Strategy Use in Individual Item of
Metacognitive
Item
Degree of frequency
Always
use it
Usually
use
it
Sometimes
use it
Seldom
use
it
Never use
it X ̅
F % F % F % F % F % F
21. Saya
mendengarkan
lagu dan berita
berbahasa
Inggris.
22 33.85 26 40.00 13 20.00 4 6.15 0 0.00 3.02
22. Saya
mengingat
kata dari
majalah
berbahasa
Inggris.
4 6.15 20 30.77 19 29.23 15 23.08 7 10.77 1.98
23. Saya membaca
kartu
vocabulary
milik saya
sebelum
pelajaran baru
dimulai.
1 1.54 3 4.61 18 27.69 28 43.08 15 23.08 1.18
24. Saya tidak
terlalu cemas
dengan kata
baru yang saya
temukan
ketika reading
atau listening,
Saya lewati
saja.
3 4.62 17 26.15 24 36.92 12 18.46 9 13.85 1.89
25. Saya
menggunakan
latihan online
untuk menguji
8 12.31 8 12.31 21 32.31 16 24.61 12 18.46 1.75
64
pengetahuan
vocabulary
saya.
Table 4.6 shows the results of the most frequently use strategy of
Metacognitive was the item 21; “I listen to English songs and news.” by the
respondents (X̅ =3.02), while the item 23; “I review my own English vocabulary
cards for reviewing before the next lesson starts.” was least used (X̅ =1.18).
3. The Result of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
The findings show that in six categories, the respondents most frequently
use Memory at the highest mean score (2.20). Meanwhile the least use strategies
are Social (Consolidation) strategies with the lowest mean score (1.77).
Table 4.7 Percentage of Overall Strategy Use
Strategy Category Mean (X̅ )
Determination 2.08
Social (Discovery) 2.04
Social (Consolidation) 1.77
Memory 2.20
Cognitive 2.03
Metacognitive 1.96
B. Data Description
As mentioned in the research methodology, to get the data, the writer
conducted a research by giving a questionnaire about students’ vocabulary
learning strategies to 65 students as a sample. After the data were collected, the
researcher analyzed them to know what are the vocabulary learning strategies
used by the students mostly. Second, to get the data about students’ vocabulary
test score, the researcher gave the students’ vocabulary test. Finally, after the
writer analyzed both data to see the correlation between students’ vocabulary
65
strategies and students’ vocabulary size by applying the formula of Pearson
Product Moment Correlation.
1) Students’ VLS Score
The findings show that in six categories, the respondents most frequently
use Memory at the highest mean score (2.20). Meanwhile the least use strategies
are Social (Consolidation) strategies with the lowest mean score (1.77).
Based on the calculation of variable Y was found ΣY=3305 and
ΣX2=175153.
2) Students’ Vocabulary Test Score
After the researcher has done the vocabulary test, the writer score to each
student by using the formula:
S = 𝑛
𝑁 x 100
Where:
S = students’ score
n = number of true answer
N = number of test items.
Based on the calculation of variable Y was found ΣY=4462 and
ΣY2=328326.
66
3) To find out the average score of the students’ vocabulary learning
Strategies, the writer will use the formula as bellow:
𝑀 = 𝑥
𝑁
Where:
M = mean
X = the Sun of Score
N = number of the students.
It is known that:
M = mean
X = 3305
N = 65
So, it can be counted as bellow:
𝑀 = 𝑥
𝑁
𝑀 =3305
65
𝑀 = 50.85
So, the average score of the students, mastery of English vocabulary was
50.85.
So, based on the valuation scale used in Islamic State Institute of Palangka
Raya, the average score of the students’ vocabulary learning strategies of English
Department students on Academic Years 2013 were in less criteria (50-<60).
67
4) To find out the average score of the students’ vocabulary size, the writer
will use the formula as bellow:
𝑀 = 𝑥
𝑁
Where:
M = mean
X = the Sun of Score
N = number of the students.
It is known that:
M = mean
X = 4462
N = 65
So, it can be counted as bellow:
𝑀 = 𝑥
𝑁
𝑀 =4462
65
𝑀 = 68.65
So, the average score of the students, mastery of English vocabulary was
68.65.
So, based on the valuation scale used in Islamic State Institute of Palangka
Raya, the average score of the students’ vocabulary size of English Department
students on Academic Years 2013 were in enough criteria (60-<70).
68
Below are the result of questionnaire about students’ vocabulary learning
strategies and their vocabulary size test score:
Table 4.8
The Students’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Their Vocabulary size
test Score
No.
Student’s Name
Questionnaire
Result
(X)
Student’s Score
(Y)
1. Ade Fitria S P 46 30
2. Ahmad Mudianor 38 71
3. Ahmad Nurwanto 69 55
4. Andi Harmiawan 24 95
5. Annisa 51 88
6. Apriani 33 63
7. Asmaniah 57 40
8. Bella Ayu Fitria 49 83
9. Bona Lestari 54 69
10. Dapit Sumbogo 55 83
11. Debie Tri H 54 52
12. Dewi Khoirun
Nisa 44 70
13. Diana Rahmawati 41 73
14. Dina Raihana 37 70
15. Dwi Warohmah 55 62
16. Dyah Sri W 53 67
17. Eka Saputri 44 83
18. Eni Andri Ani 55 86
19. Fajar Muktar 57 50
20. Fedry Fajar 55 2
21. Ferrantika Mutiara
Ramadhani 64 58
22. Herniwati 55 53
23. Intan Safitri 39 91
24. Irwan Nida S 39 98
25. Ismawati 56 56
26. Junaidi Lil Iman 59 35
27. Kurniawati 35 72
28. Lizy Alfi R 53 80
29. Marfu’ah 51 88
30. Maulna Iksan 48 81
31. MeidytaHardiyanti 49 52
32. Melinda Agustin 59 81
33. Muhammad 47 60
69
Riduan
34. Muhammad
Takdir 59 79
35. Nana Apriliana 43 84
36. Nida Soraya 50 38
37. Niny Ayu Dyah 75 89
38. Nor Hidayatullah 71 68
39. Novita Sari 50 81
40. Nur Halifah 61 68
41. Putri Rafa Salihah 62 81
42. Rahmalia 54 50
43. Ratih Heriyati 46 91
44. Raudatul Janah 44 66
45. Rifan Nuari 51 94
46. Rima Amelia
Agustin 38 56
47. Rini Andriani 61 86
48. Riska Hariyanti 43 61
49. Rizka kartika
Utami 48 70
50. Rizki Rahma 38 80
51. Rusmaya Nurlinda 45 57
52. Sauti 47 77
53. Siti Fatimah 46 31
54. Siti Hadijah 35 79
55. Siti Patimah 72 52
56. Sri Tumika 40 91
57. Sukirman 34 89
58. Susi Munawaroh 59 76
59. Susi
Widianingsing 52 62
60. Teguh irwansyah 44 84
61. Tities Tri Wuryani 64 63
62. Umratul Janah 50 80
63. Winda Normilani 67 71
64. Yoyi Sanusita
Susanti 66 44
65. Yulianti 65 67
ΣX=3305 ΣY=4462
70
5) The Correlation between Students’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies and
Students’ Vocabulary Size
In this case, both the students’ vocabulary learning strategies and students’
size are related by using Pearson Product moment formula. The data are described
on the following table:
Table 4.9
The Correlation between Students’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies and
Students’ Vocabulary Size
No. X Y XY X2
Y2
1. 46 30 1380 2116 900
2. 38 71 2698 1444 5041
3. 69 55 3795 4761 3025
4. 24 95 2280 576 9025
5. 51 88 4488 2601 7744
6. 33 63 2079 1089 3969
7. 57 40 2280 3249 1600
8. 49 83 4067 2401 6889
9. 54 69 3726 2916 4761
10. 55 83 4565 3025 6889
11. 54 52 2808 2916 2704
12. 44 70 3080 1936 4900
13. 41 73 2993 1681 5329
14. 37 70 2590 1369 4900
15. 55 62 3410 3025 3844
16. 53 67 3551 2809 4489
17. 44 83 3652 1936 6889
18. 55 86 4730 3025 7396
19. 57 50 2850 3249 2500
20. 55 2 110 3025 4
21. 64 58 3712 4096 3364
22. 55 53 2915 3025 2809
23. 39 91 3549 1521 8281
24. 39 98 3822 1521 9604
25. 56 56 3136 3136 3136
26. 59 35 2065 3481 1225
27. 35 72 2520 1225 5184
28. 53 80 4240 2809 6400
29. 51 88 4488 2601 7744
30. 48 81 3888 2304 6561
31. 49 52 2548 2401 2704
71
32. 59 81 4779 3481 6561
33. 47 60 2820 2209 3600
34. 59 79 4661 3481 6241
35. 43 84 3612 1849 7056
36. 50 38 1900 2500 1444
37. 75 89 6675 5625 7921
38. 71 68 4828 5041 4624
39. 50 81 4050 2500 6561
40. 61 68 4148 3721 4624
41. 62 81 5022 3844 6561
42. 54 50 2700 2916 2500
43. 46 91 4186 2116 8281
44. 44 66 2904 1936 4356
45. 51 94 4794 2601 8836
46. 38 56 2128 1444 3136
47. 61 86 5246 3721 7396
48. 43 61 2623 1849 3721
49. 48 70 3360 2304 4900
50. 38 80 3040 1444 6400
51. 45 57 2565 2025 3249
52. 47 77 3619 2209 5929
53. 46 31 1426 2116 961
54. 35 79 2765 1225 6241
55. 72 52 3744 5184 2704
56. 40 91 3640 1600 8281
57. 34 89 3026 1156 7921
58. 59 76 4484 3481 5776
59. 52 62 3224 2704 3844
60. 44 84 3696 1936 7056
61. 64 63 4032 4096 3969
62. 50 80 4000 2500 6400
63. 67 71 4757 4489 5041
64. 66 44 2904 4356 1936
65. 65 67 4355 4225 4489
ΣX=3305 ΣY=4462 ΣXY=223728 ΣX2=175153 ΣY
2=328326
From the calculation of variable X and Y, It was known that:
ΣX=3305
ΣY=4462
ΣXY=223728
ΣX2=175153
ΣY2=328326
72
Based on the calculation of correlation between variable X and variable Y
above, it can be known of each variable. Based on the product moment will be
found the product of rxy, as follow:
rxy= N XY-( X)( Y)
(N X2-( X)2 N Y2-( Y)
2
rxy=
65 𝑥 223728 − 3305 (5562)
{(65 𝑥 175153 −(3305)2}{(65 𝑥 328326−(4462)2}
rxy=
14542320 −14746910
11384945 −10923025 (21341190 −19909444 )
rxy=
− 204590
461920 (1431746 )
rxy=
− 204590
661352112320
rxy=
− 204590
813235 ,5823007255
rxy= − 0.25
df = N – nr
= 65 – 2
= 63
73
From the calculation above, it was known that rxy = − 0.25 and df = 63; if
we compare with table of “r” values at the degree significance of 5% and 1%, this
indicates weak negative correlation between students’ vocabulary learning
strategies and their vocabulary size (rxy : rt = − 0.25 < 0.254 ; rxy : rt = − 0.25 <
0.330).
To summarize the result of the correlation is listed below:
“r” value of product
moment
Interpretation
0.00 – 0.20 Considered as no correlation
0.20 – 0.40 Low Correlation
0.40 – 0.60 Medium Correlation
0.60 – 0.80 Strong Correlation
0.80 – 1.00 Very strong/perfect Correlation
Based on the table above it can be seen that the correlation index (rxy = −
0.25) is in the interval of (-0.20) – (-0.40), this means that the correlation belongs
to “low correlation”. In other words, there is no correlation between variable X
and variable Y. As mentioned before, from the result of calculation, the value of
rxy is − 0.25; df is 63. If it is compared with the rt at the degree of significance
5% (0.254) and 1% (0.330), the correlation between students’ vocabulary
strategies and students’ vocabulary size score is nothing correlation (rxy : rt = −
0.25 < 0.254 ; rxy : rt = − 0.25 < 0.330). So, the null hypothesis (H0) of the
research is accepted and alternative hypothesis (Hα) is rejected. The meaning of
this statement is the students’ vocabulary strategies did not has relationship or
influence to students’ vocabulary size.
74
And then to know the contribution of the variable X to the variable Y is used
the formula as below:
KP = r2 x 100 %
Where:
KP = Nilai Koefisien Determinan (determinant coefficient score)
r = Nilai koefisien korelasi (correlation coefficient score)
KP = - 0.252 x 100 %
KP = 0.0625 x 100 %
KP = 0.004 %
So, it means that the variable X (vocabulary learning strategies) gives the
contribution to the students’ vocabulary size for the English Department students
on Academic years 2013 was 0.004 % and 99.996 % is influenced by the other
aspects.
To know the value of tvalue is used the formula:
tvalue = 𝑟 𝑛−2
𝑛−𝑟2
Where:
tvalue = nilai t (value t)
r = the score of coefficient correlation and
n = the number of sample.
The criteria of the test:
If tvalue ≥ ttable so refused Ho, it means it is significant and
If tvalue ≤ ttable received Ho, it means it is not significant
75
So that by the formula above it was known that:
𝑟 = −0.25
𝑛 = 65
tvalue = 𝑟 𝑛−2
𝑛−𝑟2
tvalue = −0.25 65−2
65−(−0.25)2
tvalue = −1.9843135
8.0583807
tvalue = −0.25
Based on the calculation above, α = 0.05 and n = 65 so, df = n - 2 = 65 – 2 =
63 and ttable was 1.671.
So, it can be seen than tvalue ≤ ttable, so that the result was the Ho is
accepted and Ha is refused. In this case that variable X vocabulary learning
strategies does not have relationship or influence to students’ vocabulary size, and
many others aspect can influence the students’ vocabulary size and help the
students to enrich their vocabulary size.
C. Discussion
From the description of the data, this indicates no correlation between
students’ vocabulary learning strategies and their vocabulary size. It means that
the higher various in vocabulary learning strategies, did not guaranty the better
score will be achieved by the students.
76
This means that students who have the higher various in vocabulary learning
strategies try to pursue knowledge more than those who have the low one. They
enjoy their learning. They always feel happy and ready to do any task given by the
teacher. They do not only learn speaking in school but also out of the school.
They try to practice what they learn at school to the outside of the school.
There is a common tendency to think that correlation between variables
means that one causes or influences the change in the other one. However,
correlation does not imply causation. There may be an unknown factor that
influences both variables similarly.