MINI RESEARCH:

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS` ACHIEVEMENTS INEQUALITY IN LEARNING

ENGLISH

Arranged by:

Name :IKA AGUSTINA
Class : LTBI A
Sem : 809111032






POSTGRADUATED PROGRAM OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
English Applied Linguistics
2010/2011
I. Introduction
This research is concerned with senior high school students` inequality in learning
English. Language is Iull with inequalities with regard to its structure, media and Iunctions.
Linguistic inequality takes various Iorms. Not only the evaluation oI linguistic Iorms is
unequal, due to institutional assumptions and expectations, also the rights oI speakers to enter
a speciIic linguistic Iield is unequally distributed.
Senior high school students achievements inequality in learning english can be inIluenced
by some Iactors. This research will discuss whether the students` course level, sex/gender,
and socio-economic background had any impact on the way they perceived and coped with
their problems. This study also deals with the diIIiculties the targeted students said they Iaced
when learning English as a Ioreign language, and the reasons Ior these diIIiculties as
perceived by the learners themselves. It tries to Iind out whether the problems were due to
such Iactors as the students` lack oI knowledge oI the language rules (e.g., lack oI knowledge
oI vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation rules), lack oI motivation Ior the Foreign Language,
or lack oI training. This research is also concerned with the students` use oI strategies while
achieving some oI their linguistic tasks.
The problems that will be discussed in this study are:
1. How was senior high school students` achievements inequality in learning english
2. What were the Iactors that inIluence senior high school students` achievements
inequality in learning english
3. What were the diIIiculties they encounter in learning English as a Ioreign
language
4. What were the strategies that the students use in accomplishing their linguistic
tasks.



From this study, the researcher Iound that :
a) The learners` diIIiculties are linguistic.
b) senior high school students` achievements inequality in learning English vary with the
learners` course level, sex/gender, socio- economic and cultural background.
c) The learners` strategy use and Irequency vary with gender:
1. Female students make use oI social learning strategies more oIten than male
students do.
2. Female students use translation/ borrowing more oIten than male students do.

The results revealed that the targeted students had diIIiculties that were essentially
due to their lack oI knowledge oI the English linguistic rules, and that they made use oI
various strategies; social and aIIective strategies mainly. They also indicated that strategy use
and Irequency varied with the learners` course level, gender, and socio-economic
background. It was also Iound that 10
th
and 11
th
graders had almost the same classiIication Ior
the various strategies, but that they did not have the same Irequency use, and that the boys
used social and aIIective strategies, and translation more than the girls. In addition, the results
showed that the low socio-economic groups` use oI strategies was the most Irequent and the
most varied.
II.Review of Literature
1. Unequal Outcomes in Reading Achievement
Why are social class and racial/ethnic minority status related to reading and writing
skills? Prior research suggests three potential sources oI these disparities in learning
outcomes among students Irom these groups:
(a) diIIerences in students' access to material, social, and cultural resources outside oI school
(b) diIIerences in access to resources across schools (e.g., unequal Iunding, variation in
teacher quality, etc.) and
(c) diIIerent academic experiences that students have within schools.
In this paper, we will Iocus on the importance oI diIIerences in student experiences
within schools in explaining diIIerent outcomes by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status
(SES).' When considering inequalities in learning opportunities within schools, many
educational researchers have Iocused on the practice oI sorting students into ability groups or
"instruction learned more than students who did not receive such instruction. Since
instructional quality is unequally distributed across tracks, these diIIerences in instruction
across tracks explain a good deal oI the relationship between tracking and student learning.
Rowan and Miracle (1983) and Gamoran (1986) showed that greater progress through the
curriculum accounted Ior diIIerences in learning among students in high- and low-ability
reading groups. Gamoran (1993) also Iound that high-perIorming students in low tracks were
exposed to a more academically rigorous curriculum than is typically Iound in low-track
classrooms. While an important part oI the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status diIIerences
in achievement is explained by track assignment, substantial inequalities remain even aIter
track placement has been taken into account (e.g., Gamoran, 1987). In part, this may reIlect
diIIerences across schools in the association between social background, instruction, and
achievement: high-track instruction in low- socioeconomic status , high-minority schools, Ior
example, may not be the same as hightrack instruction in high- socioeconomic status.
However, in multilevel models that Iocus on instructional diIIerences within schools, social
background and instructional quality are associated aIter tracking is taken into account
(Gamoran & Carbonaro, 2003). This may indicate there are instructional diIIerences across
classes that are nominally in the same tracks. It may also indicate that students oI diIIerent
social backgrounds experience instruction diIIerently, even within the same class. For
example, students in the same class may experience diIIerent interactions with teachers,
encounter diIIerent expectations, and respond diIIerently to the same assignments.
Consequently, it is important to ask whether instructional quality may account Ior race/ethnic
and social class diIIerences in achievement within tracks as well as between tracks.


2. Tracking and Instructional Effects on Reading in English Classes
While our primary interest in this paper is in the importance oI tracking and
instruction Ior high school reading achievement, research on reading in earlier grades may be
relevant Ior our inquiry. Studies oI ability grouping in early Carbonaro and Gamoran rades
indicate that diIIerences in student learning in reading were largely due to the instruction
received. Barr and Dreeben (1983) demonstrated that Iirst grade reading achievement was
largely a Iunction oI the content coverage (exposure to words) as well as the pace oI
instruction. Dreeben and Gamoran (1986) Iound that the Iewer words learned and lower
levels oI reading achievement among Black and low- socioeconomic status students were
primarily due to lower levels oI instructional time and content coverage among these groups.
Other researchers have Iound that teachers had diIIiculty maintaining order in low ability
groups; the ensuing disorder created Iewer chances Ior students in these groups to read and
resulted in lower levels oI reading achievement compared to students in high ability groups
(Eder, 1981; McDermott, 1977).
Overall, these studies suggest that much oI the eIIect oI ability grouping on reading
works through diIIerences in instruction received by students. When examining secondary
schools, numerous such studies have revealed strong connections between tracking,
instruction, and English achievement. For example, Gamoran et al. (1995) Iound that student
participation, instructional coherence (i.e., the extent to which lessons and activities are
connected with prior lessons and activities), and discussion were all positively associated
with literature achievement in ninth grade. Nystrand (1997) described two diIIerent types oI
instruction that students receive: "monologic" instruction, which is characterized by the
teacher dominating the discourse in the classroom to such an extent that s/he is practically
giving a monologue; and .'dialogic" instruction where teachers provide opportunities Ior
students to have a voice in the instruction they receive. Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) Iound
that students who received instruction that was characterized as "dialogic" outperIormed
similar students who predominantly received '.monologic" instruction.
Moreover, Nystrand, Gamoran, and Carbonaro (2001) Iound that increased levels oI
uptake, coherence, and overall Irequency oI extended writing was positively associated with
writing development in ninth-grade English.
Finally, this analysis identiIy instructional practices that are associated with higher levels oI
reading and writing achievement in grades 4, 8, and 12. In reading, students who did more
reading and writing had higher test scores than students who did less. On the writing test,
high perIorming students were more likely to have talked about their writing with their
teachers, written draIts oI their papers, and been required to plan their writing . Although
these studies do not use background controls Ior student characteristics such as prior
achievement or socioeconomic status, the results suggest a relationship between reading,
writing, and discussion in class and student achievement in English.

3. How Instruction Matters for High School Reading Achievement

In sum, there are many studies that suggest that instruction plays an important role in
explaining socioeconomis status and racial/ethnic diIIerences in students' outcomes in
English class. In this study, we are primarily interested in diIIerences in reading achievement
among high school students. Thus, we must consider which aspects oI instruction are most
likely to aIIect reading achievement. On the basis oI existing research, we argue that
activities that involve and integrate writing, discussion, and reading are those most likely to
enhance reading achievement. Many scholars have documented the strong connections
between reading and writing . Consequently, we expect reading, writing, and classroom
discourse to build on each other and Iacilitate improvement in students reading skills. When
teachers require students to talk and write about what they have read, students are Iorced to
think about how to read a text and are made aware oI the literary devices that authors utilize
in constructing meanings Ior their readers (McKeown & Beck, 1998). When students do not
undertake much writing or discussion related to what they read, students are not challenged to
develop these more advanced reading skills. From this body oI research, we identiIy Iour
Iacets oI English instruction that are closely related to reading achievement.
1. First, quantity, deIined as the overall amount oI reading and writing done by students
in English class, is a key aspect oI English instruction. Applebee (1996) argues that
students must read enough material to sustain a rich and deep discussion. In addition,
suIIicient time must be devoted to written and oral analyses oI the curriculum so that
students can obtain in-depth understanding oI the material. Similarly, students who
read more have more opportunities to improve their reading skills.
2. Instructional coherence highlights the inter-relatedness oI instructional activities. In
contrast to the Iragmentation that commonly characterizes secondary school
instruction (McNeil, 1986 , coherent instruction involves the weaving together oI
teacher and student contributions, relating the diIIerent components oI instruction
such as reading, writing, and discussion with one another. When reading, discussion,
and writing are used together, students learn to draw on diIIerent strategies Ior
constructing meanings Irom texts, which is a critical component in delivering literacy
skills (Langer & Applebee, 1987; Nelson & CalIee, 1998; Spivey, 1997).
3. Student voice allows students the opportunity to inIluence the progress oI their own
lessons. By inviting students to become more equal partners in classroom discourse,
expectations Ior students as thinkers and learners are elevated, and students are
encouraged to become engaged in their studies. In addition, when students are
allowed to choose their own readings, they are likely to become more deeply engaged
in their academic work. Nystrand (1997) distinguishes between "procedural
engagement," when students go through the motions oI conIorming to academic
demands, and "substantive engagement," in which students attend deeply to the
content and meaning oI academic material. Student choice oI reading material helps
Ioster substantive engagement with reading and is thereIore likely to enhance reading
perIormance.
4. Finally, the content emphasis oI English lessons inIluences the quality oI instruction.
Applebee (1996, pp. 53-56) emphasizes that classroom content must be able to
"support meaningIul conversation" to be considered "high quality." Along similar
lines, the writer argues that some tasks challenge students to improve their reading
skills while others do not. For example, more complex activities such as studying
literature and analytical writing require students to develop new skills when reading
Ior English class. Langer and Applebee (1987) Iound that students who engaged in
analytical writing (compared with other types oI writing, such as "comprehension
questions" and "summary writing") improved their ability to recall speciIic Iacts and
"capture the gist" oI reading passages. Activities that build basic skills such as
learning grammar and/or vocabulary are unlikely to engage and challenge students
and encourage them to develop more advanced reading skills.

These Iour Iacets oI instruction have been applied to explaining writing and
literature achievement more Irequently than to reading achievement. Given the
importance oI literacy Ior adult outcomes, we believe that it would be an important
contribution to examine whether these Iacets oI instruction are related to reading
achievement among senior high school English students. In addition, while the studies oI
instruction in English classrooms have provided interesting and important insights, the
data analyzed have generally been non-probability samples that cannot be generalized to
the overall population oI students and the schools they attend. By analyzing nationally
representative data to explore our understanding oI how instruction aIIects high school
reading outcomes Ior students, we hope to expand our current understanding oI how
students acquire reading skills in senior high school.
The reseacher propose three hypotheses regarding the relationships between
instructional practices, tracking, student background, and growth in students' reading
skills in senior high school:
1. High quality instruction, characterized by high levels oI quantity, coherence, student
voice, and demanding content, will be positively related to growth in reading
achievement;
2. Controlling Ior instructional quality in English classes will explain a substantial
portion oI the track eIIect on growth in reading achievement;
3. Controlling Ior instructional quality in English classes will explain a substantial
portion oI the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic diIIerences in growth in reading
achievement.


4. Learning Strategy









When dealing with learner strategies, Tarone (1977 in Faerch et al 1992: 62-63),
Ior example, subdivided communication strategies into:
a) Paraphrase: approximation, word coinage and circumlocution;
b) Borrowing: literal translation, language switch;
c) Avoidance: topic avoidance, message abandonment;
d) Appeal Ior assistance and mime.

O`Malley et al (1990: 119-120; 137-139; 198-199) spoke about:
a) Metacognitive strategies, which may entail planning the organization oI written/spoken
discourse, previewing, preparation, monitoring, selI-evaluation, etc.
b) Cognitive strategies, which may involve repetition, resourcing, ordering, grouping or
classiIication oI words and concepts, substitution, inIerencing, elaboration,
deduction/induction, transIer, translation, etc.
c) Social mediation/ social and aIIective strategies, which may imply eliciting Irom a
teacher/peer additional explanation, cooperation, working with peers, selI-talk, etc.
Researchers Iound that diIIerent learners approached diIIerent tasks with a diIIerent set oI
skills and preIerred strategies (Rubin 1975, Stern 1975, Naiman et al. 1978 in Brown
1987: 92).
Politzer (1983 in OxIord et al. 1995: 3) discovered that 'course level inIluenced
strategy use and that 'Iemale students used social learning strategies more oIten than male
students; he linked this with women`s ' stronger social orientation (Politzer 1983 in OxIord
1989: 238). OxIord et al (1988 in Sunderland 1992: 87-88) Iound 'signiIicant sex diIIerences
is reIlecting greater use oI language strategies by Iemales. In three, studies, Irequency and
variety oI strategy use was signiIicantly greater Ior women.

Chamot et al. (1987 in OxIord 1989: 237) Iound that 'cognitive strategy use
decreased and (that) metacognitive strategy use rose as the Ioreign language course level
increased, but (that) social-aIIective strategy use remained very low across all course levels.
This research explores the strategies that were made use oI by the targeted students, and tries
to see whether there were any similarities/ diIIerences in language learning strategy use and
Irequency among the various learners. It also aims to Iind out whether these strategies match
those oI ESL and /EFL learners in the literature.


III. Methodology
a. Reseach Design
This study used qualitative descriptive qualitative design. Bogdan and Biklen
(1992: 58) say, 'Design is used in research to reIer to the researcher`s plan oI how to
proceed. While Moleong (1993: 2) states that qualitative descriptive qualitative
analysis is a research method which are used to describe, organize and summarize an
important general characteristic oI set oI data. ThereIore, the data will be described
qualitatively. In this research, this method will be used to describe how was senior
high school students` achievements inequality in learning english, what were the
Iactors that inIluence senior high school students` achievements inequality in learning
english, what were the diIIiculties they encounter in learning English as a Ioreign
language and what were the strategies that the students use in accomplishing their
linguistic tasks.



b. Participants
In this research there were 1300 senior high school students; 91
Iemale and 39 male students, who ranged in age Irom 15-18

. The students
had two levels: 60 students belonged to the 10
th
grade and 60 to the 11
th
grade, they came Irom two diIIerent senior high schools, which are Irom
SMA Sinar Husni Medan, located at Jl. Helvetia Psr V gg. Utama and Irom
SMA Harapan Mekar, located at Jl. Marelan Raya Psr IV Medan.

The choice oI the students was mainly based on socio-economic reasons.
A broad classiIication oI social classes was made Ior this research according to
which the students were divided into three broad socio-economic groups: 48
students belonged to the high` socio-economic groups; 23 to the mid` and 49 to
the low` socio-economic ones. The criteria that were Iollowed were mainly the
occupation and level oI instruction oI the students` parents; namely, the Iather, Ior
example, those students whose Iathers were businessmen, dentists, architects,
lawyers, university teachers, etc., belonged to what was considered the high
socio-economic groups; those whose Iathers were shopkeepers, policemen,
secretaries, etc., belonged to the mid` socio-economic groups, and those whose
Iathers were workers, peasants, craItsmen, barbers, etc., belonged to the low`
socio-economic groups.
c. Research Instruments
The research is based on two student questionnaires (See Appendix B)
conducted by the Iield worker, myselI. I helped the students with the questions
whenever required. The questionnaires took place during regular English
classes, and the respondents spent 50-60 minutes to Iill them out. On the whole,
they did not pose problems.
1. Student Questionnaire I (STQ I)
This questionnaire was used in another research work that included
other levels apart Irom the 10
th
and 11
th
grades . The questionnaire was
constructed to inquire about the students` socio-economic and cultural
backgrounds, their linguistic habits and preIerences, their motivation Ior and
attitudes towards the learning oI English and other Ioreign languages. It also
requested selI-ratings oI the learners' abilities in English; each rating was on
a 5-point scale where 1 represented bad` ; 2 below average ; 3 average ; 4
Iairly good and 5 good`. The students were asked about whether they had
diIIiculties in English, and about the reasons underlying them; they were also
asked about the strategies they used to solve some oI their lexical and/
semantic problems. The last questions were about testing, and about their
attitude towards the English program, which they had to evaluate as well.
The questionnaire comprised 22 yes-no, multiple choice and open questions,
but only Questions 1-8; 16-18 and 22 were taken into consideration Ior this
study.
2. Student Questionnaire II (STQ II)
This questionnaire was written in English; it requested selI-ratings oI
the learners' listening, speaking, reading and writing abilities in the English
language; each rating was on a 4-point scale where 1 represented best` , and
4 least good`. The students were also required to indicate the order oI
diIIiculty oI the various skills they had to learn on a 4-point scale where 1
represented the easiest` and 4 the hardest` skill. Moreover, the students
were asked about the diIIiculties they encountered when learning the various
skills, and about the reasons underlying them; they also had to tell about the
learning strategies they used to solve some oI their linguistic problems;
namely, lexical and semantic. The questionnaire comprised 9 questions.
Apart Irom these questionnaires, reIerence is sometimes made to Teacher
Questionnaire I, one oI the teacher questionnaires used in a Iormer research
(Ghrib Maamouri 2002), and in which the teachers were asked about their
perceptions oI learner diIIiculties among other things.

d. Data Collection and Procedure
The students` responses Irom the questionnaires, which were collected by the
experimenter, myselI, were classiIied according to the course level (10
th
/11
th
year) sex/ gender, and
socio-economic category (High/Mid/low) oI the respondents. Then they were grouped, classiIied and
analysed in relation to the points under investigation. Some percentages and Irequency counts were
provided whenever needed, and whenever possible; sometimes the respondents supplied more than
one answer, so the total count oI the answers/scores, not the total number oI students, was taken into
consideration when calculating percentages.
The data are presented, and discussed in relation to the Iollowing major points:
1. The students` selI-evaluation
2. The learners` diIIiculties in English and the reasons underlying them
3. The learners` strategies

e. Results and Data Analysis
1. Students` Self-evaluation
a. When asked to evaluate their level oI English on a 5-point scale (STQ
I, Q16), most students chose level 3 and thus classiIied themselves as
average`; whereas, most oI the 10
th
graders considered themselves as
Iairly good` by choosing level 4, the 11
th
graders chose level 3. On the
other hand, most oI the girls chose level 3 , and the boys level 4. The
high and mid socio-economic groups chose level 4, while the low
socio-economic ones level 3.
b. The students, who were also required to rate their proIiciency level
separately on the listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills (STQ
II, Q1), rated themselves as most proIicient in reading, and least
proIicient in listening; in Iact, they placed reading Iirst, speaking
second, writing third, and listening Iourth.
c. What should be noted is that the 10
th
and 11
th
graders had the same
classiIication Ior the various skills.
d. The Iemale students had reading precede speaking, writing and
listening; whereas males made both reading and speaking precede
writing and listening. According to this selI-rating, both boys and girls
considered reading as their best skill and listening as the least good.
e. The high and mid socio-economic groups had exactly the same ranking
order, as they placed reading Iirst, speaking second, writing third, and
listening Iourth. The low socio-economic groups, on the other hand,
had the same ability order Ior reading and speaking as the other
groups, but unlike them, they placed listening third and writing Iourth.
I. The results thus revealed that the 10
th
graders, the boys, the high and
mid socio-economic groups were more conIident than the rest as they
classiIied themselves as Iairly good`. The 11
th
graders, who rated
themselves as less proIicient than the 10
th
graders, may have done this
because oI their greater maturity and objectivity, which supports
Gardner`s belieI that 'older students having more experience with
learning the language, have (...) greater variation oI success and Iailure
and are more objective in their evaluations (Gardner 1985 in Kraemer
et al. 1989: 3).
g. As to the girls and the low socio-economic groups, their evaluation
might have been due to their lack oI selI-assurance. As Iar as the girls`
lack oI conIidence is concerned, the Iindings in the present research
consolidate those oI other researchers in the Iield (Bacon et al 1992).
2. Learners` Difficulties in English & the Reasons Underlying them
a. 84.61 oI the students (i.e., 110/130) said that they had problems in English
(STQI, Q 17); the 10
th
graders who rated themselves as more proIicient than
the 11
th
graders, as mentioned earlier, surprisingly complained a bit more than
the 11
th
graders (86.58 & 81.25 respectively), and the girls slightly more
than the boys (85.71 & 82.05). The mid socio-economic groups, which
seemed conIident, complained more than the rest (Mid groups: 91.30, Low:
87.75, and High: 79.31).
b. When asked to give an order oI diIIiculty Ior the various skills (STQ II, Q2),
learners, generally speaking, classiIied listening and writing among the hardest
tasks/skills (See Section 3.1), and speaking and reading among the easiest.
This matches their ability order in the various skills, and also conIorms to what
they told the Iield worker orally. This also matches the teachers` perceptions oI
the learners` diIIiculties.
3. Difficulties with the Listening skill
a. All the respondents, whatever their level, sex and socio-economic
backgrounds, mentioned vocabulary, meaning and accent/pronunciation as
the major obstacles they encountered with the listening skill (STQII, Q3);
they gave less importance to such items as topic, content, Iacts, ideas and
grammar (See Table 1, Appendix A).
b. The 10
th
and 11
th
graders almost had the same ordering Ior the items that
posed problems, the only diIIerence was that the 6th graders placed
grammar Iourth in order, while the 11
th
graders put reIerence instead.
c. There was total agreement between Iemale and male students whatever
their socio-economic backgrounds as Iar as the nature and classiIication oI
the diIIiculties they encountered with the listening skill.
d. Moreover, the students associated the number oI readings oI the listening
passages given to them in class (which was three readings in most cases)
with the problems they Iaced with this task (STQ II, Q 3a-3b). In Iact,
62.30 oI the students (i.e.81/130) complained that this number was not
suIIicient; more 11
th
graders than 10
th
graders (66.66& 59.75
respectively); more girls than boys (70.32 & 43.58), and more low than
mid and high socio-economic groups held the same claim (Low: 69.38,
Mid: 65.21 & High: 55.17).


e. What students said about their problems with vocabulary, meaning, and
pronunciation partly conIirms what the teachers reported, but they played
down grammar and content, which were underlined by the teachers as
trouble spots. Moreover, the teachers explained that the learners` problems
resulted Irom the diIIiculty oI the listening passages, which were not
handed out to the students aIter being read out, and also because oI
technical problems; tape recorders being oIten out oI order, or not always
available.

4. Difficulties with the Writing Skill
a. Table 2 reveals that the students had major problems with grammar,
vocabulary and meaning, which were classiIied Iirst; they were Iollowed by
writing mechanics (i.e., spelling, punctuation and capitalisation), topic,
content, Iacts, ideas, logical reasoning, argumentation, exempliIication,
overall structure, paragraphing, and reIerence, which were not given as
much importance (STQ II, Q8).
b. There were some similarities and also diIIerences in the 10
th
and 11
th
graders` ordering oI the various items; they agreed on giving priority to
grammar, vocabulary and meaning, but the 10
th
graders gave more
importance to mechanics, argumentation and exempliIication, and in
their turn, the 10
th
graders put more emphasis on topic/content/Iacts/ideas
and logical reasoning.
c. Grammar, vocabulary, meaning and writing mechanics were the trickiest
items Ior both Iemale and male students; however, logical reasoning, which
was played down by the boys, was considered as a major obstacle by the
girls, who in their turn, showed that they had Iewer problems with
reIerence than the boys.

d. On the whole, there was not much discrepancy between the various socio-
economic groups as Iar as the nature and classiIication oI the major
problems they Iaced when undertaking the writing task; what should be
noted; however, was that argumentation and overall structure posed more
problems to the high socio-economic groups than to the other two groups,
Ior which logical reasoning was rather a trouble spot.

e. More 10
th
graders than 11
th
graders (76.82 & 45.83 respectively)
claimed that thinking in indonesian was a great impediment in learning
English.
I. More girls than boys said that they resorted to indonesiaan Iirst (71.42 &
51.28 respectively); then translated them into English
g. Students and teachers agreed about the Iact that writing was an arduous
task not only because oI transIer, but also because oI the learners` lack oI
knowledge oI the English grammatical rules.
5. Difficulties with the Speaking Skill
a. When asked about their diIIiculties in speaking English, the students said that
most oI their problems stemmed Irom their lack oI knowledge oI vocabulary
and meaning (See Table 3); they also mentioned grammar as their second
major obstacle, and considered pronunciation only as a third problem (STQII,
Q4).
b. The 10
th
and 11
th
graders had almost the same classiIication Ior the various
elements.
c. The boys made oI pronunciation a second major obstacle; whereas, it was the
Iourth Ior the girls, who in their turn, placed their shyness as a IiIth problem;
whereas, it was the seventh Ior the boys, who also stressed that content was a
problematic area.
d. As Iar as the various socio-economic groups are concerned, there were only
slight diIIerences in their ordering oI the various items; grammar, Ior example,
was classiIied as a
e. second major problem by both the mid and low groups, and Iourth by the high
ones; and shyness seemed to embarrass the high and mid groups a bit more
than the low ones.
I. What is interesting to note is that pronunciation was considered as the second
major impediment by the boys, and that shyness seemed to embarrass the girls
and the high and mid socio-economic groups mainly. The students agreed with
their teachers about the reasons Ior speaking diIIiculties; namely, vocabulary
and pronunciation.
6. Difficulties with the Reading Skill
a. Table 4 shows that lack oI knowledge oI vocabulary and meaning was again
the major problem Ior the learners. Other items such as grammar, topic,
content, Iacts and ideas were not given as much importance. The groups,
whatever their level, sex, socio-economic backgrounds, almost had the same
classiIication (STQ II, Q6).
b. The results also revealed that lack oI motivation had some impact on the
reading process; e.g., as a matter oI Iact, 64.61 oI the targeted students
(84/130) mentioned that when they did not like the topic oI the passage they
had to read, they had problems in understanding it; a bit more 7
th
graders than
6
th
graders said they had this problem (66.66 & 63.41 respectively); slightly
more girls than boys (65.93 oI the girls & 61.53 oI the boys) held this
claim; mid and low socio-economic groups had this diIIiculty more than high
socio-economic ones (Mid: 82.60; Low: 65.30 & High: 56.89) (STQ II,
Q5).
c. This also consolidates what teachers said about the students` reading problems.
The teachers reported that some learners were slow in reading and learning the
new concepts and words and that they had diIIiculties with the themes and
topics dealt with in the textbooks, which they did not consider interesting or
challenging.

7. Reasons for Learners` Difficulties
Table 5, which sums up the students` diIIiculties with the various
skills/tasks as revealed by the two student questionnaires, indicates that :
a. The targeted students considered that their problems were linguistic Ior the
most part (accounting Ior 54.18 oI the total number oI the reasons Ior
diIIiculty supplied); they claimed that they had lexical, semantic,
grammatical and phonetic problems; they also mentioned content as being
a trouble spot. This consolidates what the interviewed teachers reported in
another research (Ghrib Maamouri 2002); they contended that most oI
their students had diIIiculties with grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary,
themes and topics.
b. The learners` diIIiculties were also cognitive/mental (representing 17.22
oI the total count); most resulted Irom transIer. The students claimed that
they were not able to think in English directly and that they relied on
indonesian. This may have been due to the Iact that indonesian is a closer
language (in terms oI origin and/ chronology). Moreover, the students
reported that they had diIIiculties with logical reasoning and
argumentation.
c. The students ranked transIer oI training, which represented 13.42 oI the
count, as the third major reason Ior their learning diIIiculties; only 50.76
oI the students (i. e, 66/130) claimed that they had enough training in the
skills they were taught; they rather complained that they did not have
enough training in the various tasks they had to achieve in order to be
highly proIicient in the FL. The interviewed teachers, in the research
mentioned earlier, claimed that they prepared their students well, and that
the latter were able to answer all the questions they might ask them.
d. Students` diIIiculties were also psychological representing.08.41 oI the
count and resulting Irom their lack oI motivation and shyness. A Iew
teachers also complained about the students` lack oI motivation.

e. Lack oI work and preparation Ior the English course were also reasons
underlying some oI the students` diIIiculties representing 02.80 oI the
count. Thus only a Iew students admitted that their lack oI serious work Ior
the course made it hard Ior them to learn the English language.
I. The students` diIIiculties were sometimes technical and organisational
(representing 02.40 oI the count); learners said that they had problems
with the use oI mechanics (spelling, capitalisation and punctuation) and
with overall structure and paragraphing (i.e., organisation oI ideas and
text).
g. Lack oI knowledge oI English and/ American cultures representing
01.55 oI the count was an impediment Ior very Iew learners.
h. What is interesting to note is that most oI the Iactors underlying students`
problems were internal learner Iactors (representing 86.57 (i.e.,
1729/1997) oI the total count) due to learning diIIiculties rather than
external ones resulting Irom teaching and lack oI training (13.42; i.e.,
268/1997).

8. Learners` Strategies
When answering Questionnaire I, Q18, the students, who were asked
about the strategies they used to solve lexical and/ semantic problems, provided
the Iollowing examples, which were categorised as Iollows (Ghrib Maamouri
2002):
a. Social mediation / Social and aIIective strategies:I ask someone Ior help`
b. Resourcing: I look up words in the textbook or in a dictionary`
c. Paraphrase/ circumlocution: I use a synonym, or express the idea I have
diIIerently by changing the structure`
d. SimpliIication: I simpliIy my sentence`
e. Avoidance strategy/ message abandonment: I give up ; I leave a blank`
I. Translation/ borrowing: I use an equivalent term in indonesian`.

Table 6 reveals that social mediation was the most Irequently used strategy
(23.51 oI the time); the learners, whatever their course level, gender, and socio-
economic background, used social mediation a lot thus showing their heavy
dependency on outside help. This goes against Chamot et al.`s (1987 in OxIord
1989: 237) results, which indicated that 'social-aIIective strategy use remained
very low across all course levels. Then came resourcing; i.e., use oI the dictionary
(21.31 oI the time.
Then Iollowed paraphrase/circumlocution (21.31 oI the time), simpliIication
(13.62), avoidance strategy (11.42) and Iinally translation/ borrowing
(08.79). All the mentioned strategies were shared by all learners whatever their
course level, gender, and socio-economic background; what varied was the
learners` rank ordering and the Irequency oI use oI each strategy.
10
th
and 11
th
graders had almost the same classiIication Ior the various
strategies; what is noticeable is that the 10
th
graders used resourcing, avoidance
strategy, translation/borrowing a bit more than the 11
th
graders, who in their turn,
used social and aIIective strategies, paraphrase/ circumlocution, and simpliIication
more.
Female and male students neither had the same ordering, nor the same
Irequency use oI the various strategies they said they used; Iemales used
resourcing, paraphrase/ circumlocution and simpliIication more than males who, in
their turn, used social and aIIective strategies, avoidance, and translation more than
Iemales, which reIutes our hypotheses.
The Iact that male more than Iemale students used social aIIective strategies, goes
against Politzer`s (1983 in OxIord et al. 1995) and OxIord et al.`s (1988 in
Sunderland 1992) Iindings, which revealed that these strategies were used by the
girls more than the boys (See the Introduction). Politzer linked this with women`s
'stronger social orientation, and we could link our results with the Iact that the
girls may have been inhibited by their shyness and Iear oI speaking to the teacher,
or in Iront oI their classmates. Bacon (1992 in Bacon et al 1992: 474) also Iound
that men were more willing to admit to using translation strategies than were
women`.
The socio-economic groups also varied in their ordering and Irequency use oI the
strategies; the low socio-economic groups used social mediation, simpliIication,
avoidance strategy and translation more than the other two groups; the high socio-
economic groups used paraphrase/ circumlocution more than the two others. As Ior
the mid groups, they used resourcing more than the rest. What should be noted is that
the low socio-economic groups` use oI strategies was the most Irequent and the most
varied.
9. Conclusions and Suggestions
A. Conclusions
This research revealed the Iollowing Iindings.
1. Most students classiIied themselves as average`; the 10
th
graders, the boys, and
the high and mid socio-economic groups proved to be more selI-conIident than
the rest as they classiIied themselves as Iairly good`. The 11
th
graders, who
rated themselves as less proIicient than the 10
th
graders, may have done this
because oI their greater maturity, and objectivity.
2. As Iar as gender is concerned, the Iindings consolidated those oI other
researchers in the Iield as they showed that the girls lacked selI-assurance
compared to the boys.
3. 84.61 oI the students said that they had problems in English; most students,
who rated themselves as most proIicient in reading and least proIicient in
listening, classiIied listening and writing as hard skills.
4. The results indicated that the reasons Ior the learners` diIIiculties varied, and
were mainly linguistic; i.e., lexical, semantic, grammatical and phonetic. The
respondents reported that they had problems mainly with vocabulary, meaning,
grammar and pronunciation when learning the various skills. In addition,
65.38 oI the students mentioned the Iact that transIer, especially Irom
indonesian, was a great handicap; namely, Ior 10
th
graders, girls and mid socio-
economic groups. Generally speaking, the problems were internal due to
learner Iactors rather than external resulting Irom teaching/ training.
5. The study also showed that the students made use oI various strategies, social
and aIIective strategies mainly, and that strategy use and Irequency varied with
the learners` course level, gender, and socio-economic background. What is
noticeable is that 10
th
and 11
th
graders had almost the same classiIication Ior the
various strategies, but they did not have the same Irequency use. The boys, on
the other hand, used social and aIIective strategies, and translation more than
the girls. In addition, the low socio-economic groups` use oI strategies was the
most Irequent and the most varied.

B. Suggestions
1. This research has shown that more Iocus should be put on listening
and writing since they proved to be the hardest skills. These skills
should thereIore be reinIorced, and students should be given more
opportunities to practice English; i.e., they should be given more
opportunities to listen to, read, write, and speak the Ioreign
language. To reinIorce the listening skill, technical problems should
be reduced as much as possible. For example, in order to cope with
the lack oI availability oI tape recorders, teachers should read the
texts aloud to their students as many times as needed. They could
make them enjoy the listening task by making them listen to songs
and enjoy singing them, or using them as vocabulary- building
tasks. Students could be asked, Ior instance, to pick up words Irom
the songs, Iill in blanks, arrange words, speak about the music, the
singer, etc. This would enrich their vocabulary, and push them to
use the FL.
2. Teachers could also use games (e.g., guess-what games, mime),
jokes, stories, etc. to make the language sessions more entertaining,
and hence more motivating Ior the learners, who would proIit Irom
their learning.
3. Teachers could make students read extra texts, such as newspaper/
magazine articles, poems, short stories, and make the learners sum
them up, paraphrase them, and speak about them to their classmates.
They could also encourage students to bring their own texts, and
choose topics Ior their oral presentations, and essays. They could
also help them Iind pen-Iriends, and push them to write them letters
in the FL, or they could ask them to keep diaries.

4. To sum up, teachers should make language tasks more as social
activities` and less as language exercises, a distinction established
by Widdowson ( Widdowson 1983: 44); they should try hard to
enhance students` curiosity about the FL culture, Ioster their
interest, and develop their desire to learn the FL.




APPENDIX A
Table 1. The Targeted Students` Difficulties with the Listening Skill (STQ II, Q3)
Item Score Rank
Vocabulary & Meaning 98 1
Accent/Pronunciation 80 2
Topic/Content/Facts/Id
eas
47 3
Grammar 28 4
ReIerence 13 5
ExempliIication 4 6


Table 2. Students` Difficulties with the Writing Skill (STQ II, Q8)
Item Score Rank
Grammar 79 1
Vocabulary & Meaning 79 1
Spelling, Punctuation &
Capitalization
30 3
Topic/Content/Facts/Ideas 23 4
Logical Reasoning 21 5
Argumentation 21 5
ExempliIication 19 7
Overall Structure &
Paragraphing
18 8
ReIerence 17 9



Table 3. Students` Difficulties with the Speaking Skill (STQ II, Q4)
Item Score Rank
Vocabulary & Meaning 81 1
Grammar 49 2
Pronunciation 43 3
Expressing thoughts
directly
41 4
Being shy 22 5
ExempliIication 17 6
Topic/Content/Facts/Id 16 7
eas



Table 4. Students` Difficulties with the Reading Skill (STQ II, Q6)

Item Score Rank
Vocabulary & Meaning 110 1
Grammar 40 2
Topic/Content/Facts/Id
eas
33 3
Logical reasoning 29 4
Argumentation 22 5
ReIerence 21 6
ExempliIication 12 7



Table 5. Reasons for Learners` Difficulties with the Various Skills
(A Summary Table: Data from STQI & STQII)
Item Score Rank Order
Linguistic
Reasons :
a.Lexical &
Semantic
b.Grammatical
c.Phonetic
d.Content
482

305

144
151

Total : 1082
54.18 1
Cognitive/Ment
al Reasons :
a. TransIer

L1 transIer
Not able to think
in the FL
directly


b.Logical
Reasoning


78
132



Total: 251
50
43
_____________
12.56
17.22
2
c.
Argumentation

___
Total: 344
Transfer of
Training
268 13.42 3
Psychological
Reasons
a. Lack oI
Motivation
b. Shyness



110

58

Total : 16 8
08.41 4
Lack of work
and
preparation for
the English
course
56 02.80 5
Technical & Organisational 30


Table 6. Learners` Strategies (STQ I, Q18)

Strategy Total Rank
Score Order

a. Social mediation/ social
& aIIective strategies 107 23.51 1

b. Resourcing 97 21.31 2

c. Paraphrase/ circumlocution 97 21.31 2

d. SimpliIication 62 13.62 4

e. Avoidance strategy/
message abandonment 52 11.42 5

I. Translation/ borrowing 40 08.79 6

Opportunities 455




APPENDIX B

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE I
(English translation)
1. Age ( No. oI years ): -------------- 2. Sex : F M
3. Home Address : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Father`s/ Guardian`s occupation ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Mother`s / Guardian`s occupation ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Father`s/ Guardian`s level oI instruction ? ( please indicate his grade/level at the primary/
secondary school / university, and the diplomas he got :------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Mother`s/ Guardian`s level oI instruction ? ( please indicate her grade/level at the primary/
secondary school / university, and the diplomas she got:--------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Which grade are you at ? ( please circle the appropriate answer and mention the name oI
your school)
10
th
, 11
th
(school name : -------------------------------------------------------------------------)
9. Apart Irom indonesian and English, do you know another language ?( please circle the
appropriate answer ) Yes No
10. Would you have liked to learn another Ioreign language instead oI English ?
Yes No
10a. II yes`, which one ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
11. Do you have the opportunity to speak English outside the classroom ? Yes No
11a. II Yes`, with whom ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
12. Do you listen to the English programs on the TV ? Yes No
12a. Do you listen to English records/ cassettes / C.D.`s ? Yes No
13. Do you watch English T.V. programs and Iilms ? Yes No
14. Do you read books, reviews, newspapers, or magazines in English ? Yes No
14a. II yes`, give some names/ Titles :
15.Do you like English ? Yes No
15a. II yes` , why ? ( Please circle the appropriate answer ; you can choose more than one
Ior each case)

I like English because :
a. I have good marks
b The English program is interesting
c. I like my English teacher
d . English is easy
e. English is a beautiIul language
I. English is the language oI my Iavourite songs
g . I`m interested in English/ American culture
h. English is the language oI science and technology
i. English is an international language
j. English is the language I use with tourists
k. English will help me to get a good job
l. I will need English to work and live abroad
m. Other?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15b. II not`, why not ? ( Please circle the appropriate answer ; you can choose more than one
Ior each case)
I don`t like English because:
a. English is not a beautiful language
b English is diIIicult
c. I don`t have good marks
d. The English program is long
e The topics and themes dealt with in the textbook are not interesting
I. The teaching method is traditional
g .The teacher does not explain words in indonesian
h. I don`t get along with my classmates
i. The teacher does not ask me questions in class and does not know my name
j. I don`t get along with my English teacher
k. I don`t like English speaking people
l. I don`t appreciate English/American culture
m. I don`t understand English/ American culture
n. I haven`t chosen English ; it`s a compulsory subject
o. I don`t like languages, I preIer scientiIic subjects
p. Other ? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.What is your level oI English ? ( Please circle the appropriate answer)

Bad Below Average Average Fair Good
1 2 3 4 5
17. Do you have problems in English ? Yes No
17a. II yes`, what kind oI problems ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17b.II you have diIIiculties in English, are they due to (Please circle the appropriate answer ;
you can choose more than one Ior each case) :
a Lack oI comprehension oI grammar rules
b. Lack oI knowledge oI the vocabulary
c. Lack oI comprehension oI the content oI the texts dealt with in class
d. Lack oI knowledge oI English/American culture
e. Bad pronunciation
I. Thinking in indonesian and not in English
h. Being shy and scared oI speaking in English in class and making mistakes
i. Lack oI work, or preparation Ior the English course
j. Lack oI motivation Ior the subject
k. Other ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18.II you have any diIIiculty in understanding or Iinding out words in English, what do you
usually do to solve your lexical problems ? (Please circle the appropriate answer ; you can
choose more than one Ior each case) :
a. I look up words in the textbook or in a dictionary
b. I ask someone Ior help ( the teacher, a classmate, a relative...)
c. I use a synonym, or express the idea I have diIIerently by changing the structure
d. I give up ; I leave a blank
e. I simpliIy my sentence
I. I use an equivalent term in indonesian
g. Other ?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Do you take private courses in English ? Yes No
20. How many tests do you have a term ?
Number oI tests -------------
20a. Is the number suIIicient ? Yes No
20b. Do you think that the tests you are given reIlect your competency in English ? Yes No
20c. II not` , why not ? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
21. What do you think oI the English program ? (Please circle the appropriate answer ; you
can choose more than one Ior each case) :
a. easy b. diIIicult c. long d. interesting e. not interesting I. other ?
22. Which item do you think is diIIicult ? (Please circle the appropriate answer ; you can
choose
more than one Ior each case) :
a. Texts b. Comprehension questions c.Grammar exercises d. Multiple choice
tests

e. the listening task I. Speaking g. Reading h. Writing i. Other ?



STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE II
1. In English , which skill are you better at :
Listening Speaking Reading Writing?
( Indicate the order of ability on a scale oI 1 - 4 : (1) best, ( 4) least good) )

2. Which skill do you consider the most diIIicult :
Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing?
( Indicate the order of difficulty on a scale oI 1 - 4 : ( 1 ) easiest), (4 ) hardest)
3. What are your main diIIiculties in listening, iI any :
Vocabulary, meaning, accent/ pronunciation, grammar, topic/ content/ Iacts/ ideas, examples,
reIerence,
Other ( please speciIy) .......................................................................................... ?
( Circle the appropriate answer, you can choose more than one).
3a. How many readings are you given Ior each listening passage ? Number :
3b. Is the number oI readings suIIicient ? Yes No
4 . What are your main diIIiculties in speaking, iI any :
Grammar, content/ topic, examples, pronunciation, expressing your thoughts directly in
English, being shy, vocabulary, meaning
Other..........................................................................................................................?
( Circle the appropriate answer, you can choose more than one)
5. When you do not like the topic oI the passage do you have problems in understanding what you
read? Yes No
6. What are your main diIIiculties in reading, iI any :
Content/ topic/ ideas, logical reasoning (organization oI ideas and text), grammar,
argumentation , exempliIication, reIerence, vocabulary, meaning
Other ( please speciIy).......................................................................................................... ?
( Circle the appropriate answer, you can choose more than one)
7. Do you think that your diIIiculties in writing in English may be due to the Iact that :
a. you use indonesian Yes No

to express ideas and then translate them into English ?
8. Do you think that your diIIiculties in writing in English result Irom your lack oI knowledge oI :
Content/topic/ideas, logical reasoning ( organization oI ideas and text) , vocabulary and
meaning, spelling, punctuation, capitalization argumentation , exempliIication, reIerence,
overall structure ( paragraphing) , grammar (tense, adverbs, adjectives , articles, prepositions,
conjunctions...)
Other (please speciIy)........................................................................................ ?

(Please circle the appropriate answer(s))
9. Do you think you have had enough training in the various skills? Yes No












References
Applebee, A. (1996). Curriculum as conversation. Transforming traditions of teaching and
learning. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press.
Bacon, M.C. Susan and M.D. Finnemann (1992). Sex diIIerences in selI-reported belieIs
about Ioreign language learning and authentic oral and written input.
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press.
Brown, H. Douglas (1987). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 2
nd
ed. Prentice
Hall Inc., N.J.
Dreeben, R., & Gamoran, A. (1986). Race, instruction, and learning. American Sociological
Review, 51, 660-669.
Gamoran, A. (1986). Institutional and instructional eIIects oI ability grouping. Sociology of
Education, 59, 85-98.
Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratiIication oI high school learning opportunities. Sociology Of
Education, 60, 135-155.
Gamoran, A. (1993). Alternative uses oI ability grouping in secondary schools: Can we bring
high quality instruction to low-ability classes? American Journal of Education, 102,
1-22.
Gamoran, A., & Carbonaro, W. (in press). High school English: A national portrait.
High School Journal.
Gamoran, A., & Mare, R. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality:
Compensation, reinIorcement, or neutrality? American Journal of Sociology,94,
1146-83.

Gamoran, A,, Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & LePore, P. C. (1995). An organizational analysis
oI the eIIects oI ability grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 2, 687-
715.
Faerch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper (eds.) (1992). Strategies in Interlanguage
Communication, Longman Group Limited. 5
th
impression.
Gardner, R.C., and W.E Lambert (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language
Learning. Rowley, Massachussetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Ghrib Maamouri, Esma (2002). Learners` and teachers` perceptions oI learning and teaching
issues. In the Revue tunisienne des langues vivantes, Faculte des Lettres de la
Manouba, Universite de la Manouba. (in press).

Kraemer, Roberta and David Zizenwine (1989). Changes in attitude toward
learning Hebrew in a South AIrican setting. Language Learning, 39, 1: 1
13.
McKeown, M.,& Beck, I. (1998). Talking to an author: Readers taking charge oI
the reading process. In N. Nelson & R. CalIee (Eds.), The reading-ulriting
connection. Chicago: National Society Ior the Study oI Education.
McNeil, L. (1986). Contradictions of control. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Nystrand, M. (with Gamoran, A,, Kachur, R., & Prendergrast, C.). (1997). Opening diulogue.
Understanding the dynamics of language and lean:ing in the English classroom.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds oI
English lessons. In Nystrand, M., et al., Opening dialogue. Understunding the
dynamics of language and lean:ing in the English classroom. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A,, & Carbonaro, W. (2001). On the ecology oI classroom
instruction: The case oI writing in high school English and social studies. In P.
Tymjala, L.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. Ho:i schools struct:lre inequality. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.

O`Malley, J. Michael and Anna Uhl Chamot (1990). Learning Strategies in Second
Language Acquisition , Cambridge University Press.
OxIord, L. Rebecca (1989). Use oI language learning strategies: A synthesis oI
studies with implications Ior strategy training. System, 17, 2: 235-247.
OxIord, L. Rebecca and Judith A. Burry Stock (1995). Assessing the use oI
language learning worldwide with the ESL/EFL version oI the strategy
inventory Ior language learning (SILL). System, 23: 11-23.
Rowan, B., & Miracle, Jr., A. (1983). Systems oI ability grouping and the stratiIication oI
achievement in elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 56 133-144.
Sunderland, Jane (1992). Gender in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 46/1: 81-91.
OxIord University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1983). New starts and diIIerent kinds oI Iailure. In Learning to
write. First language/second language, Aviva Freedman, Ian Pringle, and