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.