THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENT SPEAKING

STRATEGIES AND THEIR THINKING STYLE AT SMP NEGERI

18 BUTON

A THESIS

Submited as Partial Fulfillment of Requirement for the Degree of

Sarjana Pendidikan at English Education Study Program of Teacher Education and
Teacher Training Faculty Dayanu Ikhsanuddin University
Baubau

By:

HALIMA
NPM. 19231007

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
DAYANU IKHSANUDDIN UNIVERSITY
BAUBAU
2024
 APPROVAL SHEET

This proposal has been presented whit a seminar and approved by consultants at

the English Education Study Program of Education and Teachers Training Faculty

of Dayanu Ikhsanuddin University Baubau.

BauBau, Maret, 2024

Halima
NPM.19231007

Approved by:

Consultant I, Consultant II,

Asti Wahyuni B, S.Pd., M.Pd Nety, S.Pd., M.Pd.

NIDN.0913048501 NIDN.0920068202

Acknowledged by:
H ead of English Language Education Study Program,

Baharudin S.Pd.,M.Pd
NIDN: 0931127804

ii
 LEGALIZATION SHEET

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENT SPEAKING

STRATEGIES AND THEIR THINKING STYLE AT SMP NEGERI
18 BUTON

Arranged by:

HALIMA
19231007
This thesis is written as a partial fulfillment
of requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

It had been defended in front of the thesis examination committee at

English Language Education Study Program
Education and Teacher Training Faculty
Dayanu Ikhsanuddin University
Date: 2024

THESIS EXAMINATION COMMITTEE

Supervisor : Ir.L.M. Sjamsul Qamar , M .T., IPU (…………….)

Head : Haeruddin, S.Pd., M.A (…………….)
Secretary : Baharudin, S.Pd., M. Pd (…………….)
The Examiner
Main Examiner : (…………….)
Member Examiner : Asty Wahyuni, S.Pd., M.Pd (…………….)
Member Examiner : Nety, S.Pd.,M. Pd (…………….)

Baubau, 2024
Legalized by,
Dean of FKIP Unidayan,

Haerudin, S.Pd.,M.A
NIDN. 0931127606

iii
 LETTER OF THESIS AUTHENTICITY

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:

Nama Lengkap : Halima

NIM : 19231007

Tempat/Tanggal Lahir : Jayapura, 14 April 2001

Program Studi : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Fakultas : FKIP/Universitas Dayanu Ikhsanuddin

Alamat Rumah : Jl. Poros Pasarwajo – Wabula, Kelurahan Kombeli

Dengan ini menyatakan bahwa karya dengan judul “The Correlation Between

Student Speaking Strategies And Their Thinking Style At SMP Negeri 18 Buton”

merupakan hasil karya saya sendiri dan belum pernah diajukan untuk memperoleh

gelar kesarjanaan disuatu perguruan tinggi dan sepanjang sepengetahuan saya,

dalam skripsi ini tidak terdapat karya atau pendapat yang pernah ditulis atau

diterbitkan orang lain kecuali secara tertulis diacu dalam naskah dan disebutkan

dalam daftar pustaka.

Demikianlah pernyataan ini dibuat dalam keadaan sadar dan tanpa ada unsure

paksaan dari siapapun. Jika dikemudian hari ditemukan ketidak benaran

informasi, maka saya bersedia didiskualifikasi ataupun dibatalkan dari status

kesarjanaan.

Baubau, ,2024
Yang menyatakan

Halima
NPM. 19231007
iv
 DEDICATION SHEET

1. Allah will not burden His servants with trials beyond their capabilities.

2. Do not give up easily: face everything with patience, fortitude, and

toughness.

3. “…Allah will exalt those who believe among you and those who are given

knowledge by several degress…” (Surah Al-Mujadalah ayat 11)

‘’Humbled in the eyes of humans, exalted in the eyes of god ,prove

them wrong’’

‘’Gonna figt and don’t stop until you are proud’’

‘’There is always a price in a process, just enjoy the tiredness. Expand

that sense of patience ,everything you invest to make yourself the

person you dream of ,my not always go smoothly. But, it’s the waves

that you will be able to tell later’’

 My parents who tirelessly and lovingly offer extraordinary prayers for

their children and provide the best for everything.

 My brothers, my sister, my dear family, my dear friends who have

taught me many lesson about life and motivated me to be better person

 Religion, Nation, and my almamater.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, the researcher would like to say Alhamdulillahirabbil

A’lamiin, a grateful thanks to the god almighty Allah SWT who has given

blessing and mercy to the researcher in completing this thesis entitled “The

Correlation Between Student Speaking Strategies And Their Thinking Style At

SMP Negeri 18 Buton”.

Second, the researcher wishes to express gratitude to my beloved Father

(Lasajia ) and my Dearest Mother (Salma ), who have showered their love on both

the joys and the tragedies. They have taught manners, integrity, patience, and

responsibility in dealing with life. They also remind and offer guidance if the

researcher makes a mistake; thank you so much for your advice in making the

researcher's path easier.

A special thank you to the first consultant,Mrs Asty Wahyuni. S.Pd.,

M.Pd., and the second consultant,Mrs. Nety, S.Pd., M.Pd., for their guidance,

vi
corrections, suggestions, and inspiration when organizing this thesis. Thank you

so much, Mrs for providing the researcher with such important knowledge. The

researcher prays that Allah SWT will return your favor.

This thesis was arranged to fulfill one of the requirements for the degree

of Sarjana Pendidikan at English Study Program, Education and Teacher Training

Faculty Dayanu Ikhsanuddin Baubau. The researcher realizes that finishing this

thesis needs a lot of help, suggestion, consultations, and briefing from many parts

so that the researcher gives appreciation to them, those are:

1. Ir. L. M. Sjamsul Qamar, M.T,. IPU. as the Rector of Dayanu Ikhsanuddin

University Baubau.

2. Dr. Rasmuin, M.Pd. as the Dean of Education and Teacher Training Faculty.

3. Baharudin, S.Pd., M.Pd. as the Head of English Education Study Program of

Education and Teacher Training Faculty of Dayanu Ikhsanuddin University.

4. Saifullah, S.Pd., M.TESOL. as the secretary of English Study Program.

5. All of the lecturers and staff administration of Teacher Training and Education

Faculty in particular the lectures of English Program of Study in giving

guidance to the researcher in completing this thesis.

6. All of the students of SMP Negeri 18 Buton especially the eighth-grade

students for their enthusiasm when the researcher did research in their class.

7. The researcher’s family starts from my parents, Stepmother Rasida, My

brothers Hairullah saud ,Taufik Saifullah, And Faizan Saifullah, also my sister

Hafizah irsadila who always pray, encourage and be my support system. May

Allah SWT always bless all of you

vii
8. To My beloved Kahaerudin, Thank you for being a companion for the writer.

You have contributed a lot to the writing this thesis ,provide me with

energy ,time, thoughts and materials and always be patient with me. Thank you

for being part of the beginning of my college journey until now.

9. My best friends, Rianti, Lulun Oktafin pakambi, Nur fitrah jusar, Nur hikmah,

Asma ,Hasman ,Ikbal, sadiah, Mama Awang and others who cannot be

mentioned perhaps one by one, thank you for always supporting each

other ,and always giving help and motivation.

10. And also to all my friends in English Study Program especially class A 2019

who cannot be mentioned one by one, thanks for your support during my

education in these four years, our memory will always be immortal in my

mind. For many people who help me whose names cannot be mentioned one by

one, I can only say ‘thank you so much’.

The researcher realizes that this thesis still has some weaknesses.

Therefore, the researcher expects constructive contribution and suggestions to

perfect this thesis.

Wassalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

Researcher

Halima
NPM. 19231007

viii
 ABSTRAK

HALIMA (19231007) Hubungan antara Strategi Berbicara dan Gaya Berpikir

Siswa, di kelas 8 SMP Negeri 18 Buton (Dibimbing oleh Asti Wahyuni B dan
Nety)

Rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah ''Is there a Correlation

between the Speaking Strategy and thinking style of students in grade 8 of SMP
Negeri 18 Buton. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah ada
Hubungan antara Strategi Berbicara dan Gaya Berpikir Siswa, di kelas 8 SMP
Negeri 18 Buton.
Pengumpulan data penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan
instrumen penelitian berupa kuesioner, guna mengetahui Hubungan antara
Strategi Berbicara dan Gaya Berpikir Siswa, di kelas 8 SMP Negeri 18 Buton.
Data yang diperoleh dianalisis menggunakan analisis statistik deskriptif dan
analisis statistik inferensial.
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini, disimpulkan dapat disimpulkan bahwa
kategori Strategi Berbicara memiliki nilai rata-rata sebesar 29,93 dan kategori
Gaya Berpikir berada dalam kategori Tinggi dengan nilai rata-rata sebesar
36,60. Korelasi antara Strategi Berbicara dan Gaya Berpikir berada dalam
kategori korelasi Tinggi, yang diperoleh karena nilai korelasi antara kedua
variabel tersebut adalah 0,467. Dapat juga dilihat dari nilai signifikansi yang
adalah sig. α < 0,05 (0,000 < 0,05), karena nilai signifikansi lebih rendah dari
alpha (α), dapat disimpulkan bahwa Ha diterima dan H0 ditolak. Dengan kata
lain, terdapat korelasi yang signifikan antara Strategi Berbicara dan Gaya
Berpikir. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa terdapat korelasi yang signifikan dan berada
dalam kategori korelasi yang kuat dalam strategi berbicara dan Gaya Berpikir
siswa kelas delapan di SMP 18 Buton.

ix
 ABSTRACT

HALIMA (19231007) The Correlation Between Student Speaking Strategies

And Their Thinking Style At SMP Negeri 18 Buton (Supervised by Asti
Wahyuni B and Nety)
The problem statement in this study is "Is there a Correlation between the
Speaking Strategy and thinking style of students in grade 8 of SMP Negeri 18
Buton?" This study aims to determine whether there is a Relationship between
Speaking Strategies and Students' Thinking Styles in grade 8 of SMP Negeri 18
Buton.
The data collection for this research was conducted using a questionnaire
instrument to determine the Relationship between Speaking Strategies and
Students' Thinking Styles in grade 8 of SMP Negeri 18 Buton. The data obtained
were analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis and inferential statistical
analysis.
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the Speaking
Strategy category has an average value of 29.93 and the Thinking Style category
is in the High category with an average value of 36.60. The correlation between
Speaking Strategies and Thinking Styles is in the High correlation category, which
was obtained because the correlation value between the two variables is 0.467. It
can also be seen from the significance value which is sig. α < 0.05 (0.000 < 0.05),
because the significance value is lower than alpha (α), it can be concluded that Ha
is accepted and H0 is rejected. In other words, there is a significant correlation
between Speaking Strategies and Thinking Styles. It can be concluded that there is
a significant correlation and it is in the strong correlation category in speaking
strategies and students' Thinking Styles in grade eight at SMP 18 Buton.

x
 TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
THESIS COVER PAGE ……………………………………………………… i
APPROVAL SHEET....................................................................................... ii
LEGALIZATION SHEET ............................................................................ iii
LETTER OF THESIS AUTHENTICITY.................................................... iv
DEDICATION SHEET.................................................................................. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................ vi
ABSTRAK ...................................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... x
TABEL OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... xii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURE ......................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF APPENDICE .................................................................................. xv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 1
A. Background.............................................................................. 1
B. Identification of the Problem................................................... 3
C. Scope of the Research.............................................................. 4
D. Research Question................................................................... 4
E. Objective of the Research......................................................... 4
F. Significant of the Research...................................................... 5
CHAPTER II. LITERATUR REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK,
AND HYPOTHESIS....................................................................................... 6
A. Literature Review................................................................... 6
1. Theoretical Review............................................................ 6
2. Empirical Review.............................................................. 20
B. Conceptual Framework.......................................................... 21
C. Hypothesis............................................................................. 22
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD...................................................... 23
A. Type of the Research............................................................... 23

xi
 B. Variable of the Research....................................................... 23
C. Time and Place..................................................................... 23
D. Population and Sample........................................................ 23
E. Instrument and Technique of Data Collection...................... 24
F. Technique of Data Analysis.................................................. 25
G. Research Schedule............................................................... 28
CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION.............................................. 29
A. Research Finding............................................................... 29
B. Discussion.......................................................................... 34
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGESSTION................................. 36
A. Conclusion………………………………………………. 36
B. Suggestion.......................................................................... 36

PEFERENCES

.......................................................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX ..................................................................................................... 41

xii
 LIST OF TABLE

Page

Table. 1 The Research Plan on Speaking Strategies and Thinking Style......... 24

Table 2. Skala Likert......................................................................................... 25

Table.3 The category of Speaking Strategies and Thinking Style.................... 26

Tabel 4. Product Moment.................................................................................. 27

Tabel 5 Test Result of Summary of Descriptive Statistics.............................. 29

Tabel 6 Test Result of Speaking Strategies Distribution Score........................ 30

Tabel 7 Test Result of Distribution Score Thinking Style................................ 31

Table 8. Linearity Testing Statistical Analysis.................................................. 32

Tabel 9 Correlation Table................................................................................. 33

Table 10. Relationship Degree Guideline......................................................... 34

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURE

Page
Figure 1: A Conceptual Framework......................................................................21

xiv
 LIST OF APPENDIX

Page
Appendix 1. Questionnaire Instruction......................................................................... 42

Appendix 2 Data Tabulation of Strategic Speaking Questionnaire.................. 46

Appendix 3 Data Tabulation Questionnaire of Thinking Style........................ 48

Appendix 4 Speaking Strategies Statistic Analysis.......................................... 50

Appendix 5 Thinking Styles Statistic Analysis................................................ 51

Appendix 6 Linearity Testing........................................................................... 52

Appendix 7 Correlation Analysis...................................................................... 51

Appendix 8 Documentation.............................................................................. 52

xv
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

As a social being, communication in everyday life is a necessity that can

not be released by humans to meet their needs. It is an impossibility to meet the

needs of fellow human beings without communicating with language. English is

an international language, so its mastery is needed to be able to exist in

international competitions. Language as its function as explained by Halliday that

the meaning of the function of language is the same meaning as how and for what

it is used.

Mastery of English is not an easy thing other than its misguidance as a

foreign language in general has a unique and arbitrary character. With language

learners are required to follow both textually and contextually and the

accompanying culture. Some of the factors that can drive language learner

success are student characteristics that are in tune with the language they are

learning. The successful learning process not only with good learning strategies

and methods also depends on the student's thinking style.

Drozdenko, Tesch, Coelho (2011) states that there are two factors that

can interfere with students in the classroom, namely internal and external factors.

Internal factors come from itself such as talking to others, sending messages,

playing mobile phones, listening to music on his MP3. An external factor is a kind

of interference made from another, it. It could be from a friend, the teacher who is

difficult to understand or it could be from outside the classroom

 Furthermore, O'Malley, J. M. & Chamot (1990) classify language

learning strategies into three sub-categories of subcategories. First, cognitive

strategies are specific learning tasks and explicit learning that include repetition,

resources, translation, grouping, recording, deduction, recombination, imagery,

auditory representation, keywords, contextualization, elaboration, transfer, and

inference. Second, metacognitive strategies apply to project learning advance

organizer, directed attention, selective attention, self-management, functional

planning, self-monitoring, delayed production, and self-evaluation. Third, social

strata which involve interaction with other people. While the strategy based on

Oxford (1990) which consists of cognitive strategies as a better approach to

controlling emotions, metacognitive used to implement control of the learning

process, and social strategies as responses that involve others in their development

Speaking is one of the important skills for students to master, because it

can help them communicate well with other people. but not all students are able to

speak well especially if they don’t have the right strategy to speak. Besides that

student listen and write more which results in less trained students speaking skill.

Students are given more knowledge and grammar rules without ever engaging

them in speaking practice, in other words students are given more knowledge of

language rather that practicing using language through speaking skills. And what

happens is that students lack confidence in giving opinions and speaking in front

of the class.

Besides that, students also have different thinking style that can affect

how they organize their thoughts and speak. Nyikos and Oxford (1993: 11) state
that even with the best teachers and methods, students are the only ones who can

actually do the learning. Based of the problems, researchers know that the factors

that affect the learning process depend on how students' thinking styles are.

Dweck (2006) says that there are 2 kinds of approaches in students' thinking

styles; They are fixed mindset and growth mindset. With a fixed mindset,

students always feel anxious and nervous about setbacks or criticisms. Students

with a growth mindset feel eager to learn to improve their performance and enjoy

exploring, experimenting, and stretching. Students have branched minds, and it

calls when their brains start to grow up but still not maxed out. Usually students

learn more to get new information, science and from this process students can

develop their brains again. Students who can focus on the learning process can

usually get a lot of information from students.

Based on the explanation above, the research will be carried out by

researchers through variables, especially regarding students' speaking strategies

and students' thinking styles. Researchers are interested in conducting research

with the title ‘’ The Correlation between Student’s Speaking Strategies and their

Thinking Style at SMP Negeri 18 Buton’’

Based on the background that has been described above, the following

conclusion can be drawn:

1. Students still lack confidence in speaking English

2. Students don’t have the right strategy to speak

3. students lack vocabulary mastery

4. Students have limited knowledge of how to pronounce English word

B. The Limitation of Problem

To be more focused, the study has limitations:

The research will be limited to Speaking Strategies and Thinking Style. Speaking

Strategies will be focused on Metacognitive strategies, Affective strategies social

strategies. Thinking style will be focused on Internal style and External style.

C. Research Question

Based on the background above, the researchers formulated the problem

in this study in the form of the question ''Is there a Correlation between the

Speaking Strategy and thinking style of students in grade 8 of SMP Negeri 18

Buton?

D. The Objective of the Research

Based on the question statement, the researcher intends to find out

whether or not there is a Correlation between Speaking Strategies and Student

Thinking Style, in grade 8 of SMP Negeri 18 Buton''

E. The Significance of the Research

1. For students, this research is expected to help improve students' speaking

skills to improve shiva's thinking style.

2. For teachers, this research is expected to help teachers in adjusting learning

methods to students' thinking styles, so that learning is more effective.

3. For schools, this research is expected to be a material for input and

information on the development of the world of education.

4. For Other Researchers The results of this study can be used as a consideration

to develop further research on Speech Strategies and Thinking Styles of

Students at SMP Negeri 18 Buton

 CHAPTER II

LITERATUR REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, AND

HYPOTHESIS

A. Literature Review

1. Theoretical Review

Learning is the acquisition of new experiences by a person in the form of

relatively sedentary behavior changes, as a result of the existence of a process in

the form of learning interaction with an object (knowledge), or through

reinforcement in the form of experience of an object in the environment.

Learning is an activity that a person does intentionally in a conscious state to

acquire new concepts, understandings, or knowledge so as to allow a person to

occur behavior changes that are relatively fixed both in thinking, feeling, and in

acting (Susanto, 2013).

Furthermore, Nurgiyantoro (2001: 276) revealed that speaking is a

second language activity carried out by humans in language life, that is, after

listening activities, based on the sounds that hear them, then humans learn to

pronounce and finally are skilled in speaking, it can be said that speaking is a

system of signs that can be heard and that are visible (visible ) that utilizes a

certain number of muscles of the human body, for the purpose and purpose of the

idea or ideas combined. Speaking is a form of human behavior that utilizes

physical, psychological, neurological, semantic and linguistic factors

Speaking is the act of generating a language to communicate. This

communication is intended so that the speaker and listener can understand the
intent of the conversation. It is in this process of communication that the

interaction between the speaker and the listener occurs (Tim, 2003: 10).

Hardan (2013: 1725) defines language learning strategies as steps,

behaviours and techniques used by learners to enhance and facilitate the language

acquisition. The concept of language learning strategies is received a considerable

amount of significance since early 1970 century for the crucial role they are

playing in the processes of language learning and acquisition this is supported

with what Alhasony (2017: 256).

Ghani (2003: 12) had an extensive study on the area of language

learning strategies. She defined these strategies as: specific actions, behaviours,

step, or techniques that students (often intertionally) use to improve their progress

in developing second language skill. According to her, these strategies can

facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of the new language. This

communication process can be described in the form of a diagram as follow:

Figure 1. Communication Process

Channels

Symbol

Message

Transmitter/
communicator Receiver/ communicant

Feedback

Through the picture above, it can be explained that in the process of

communication there is a movement of messages from the communicator

(speaker.) to communicants (listeners). A communicator is someone who has a

message. The message to be conveyed to the communicant is first transformed

into a symbol that is understood by both parties. Symbols require channels to be

transferred to communicants.

Speaking as a form of communication will be easy to understand. How to

compare a communication diagram to a language event diagram. books (in Henry

Guntur Tarigan, 1984: 12), explain the following flow of linguistic events:

SPEAKERS LISTENERS

Intention Understanding
(Pronunciation)
(Patucap)

Encoding Reading Passwords

(coding) (decoding)

Phonation Hear

(Pronunciation (hear)

Transition

Figure 2. Language event flow

The same is stated by Asep Jolly (2004: 1) that speaking is one aspect of

language strategy. Speaking as a process of communication, the process of

transforming the form of thoughts or feelings into a meaningful form of speech or

voice, conveyed to others. Speaking is the event of conveying one's intentions

(ideas, thoughts, feelings) to others. Speaking strategy, productive in nature,

earning, giving, and giving. Speaking is not only quick to get words out of the

speech apparatus, but mainly is to convey the points of thought on a regular basis,

in various languages according to the function of communication

Based on the opinions, it can be concluded that speaking is the ability to

pronounce articulated sounds or words to express, express and convey thoughts

of feelings through spoken language to a person or group of people in order to

achieve a certain goal.

a. Understanding Speaking Strategies

A speaking strategy is the ability to express opinions or thoughts and

feelings to a person or group verbally, both face-to-face and remotely. Moris

in Novia (2002: 57) states that speaking is a natural means of communication

between members of society to express thoughts and as a form of social

behavior. Meanwhile, Wilkin in Maulida (2001: 206) states that the purpose

of teaching English today is to speak.

Furthermore, Wilkin in Oktarina (2002: 199) states that Speaking

strategy is the ability to compose sentences because communication occurs

through sentences to display differences Varied behaviors from different

societies. Speaking of studying in Primary School is not like talking studying

in high school or college. In high school it can be taught about speaking, or

the like but in elementary school students speak learning includes learning to

speak and tell stories, which in general has the objective of giving birth to

regular thoughts and feelings, by using coherent, good, and correct spoken

language.

Oxford (1990: 11) categorizes language learning strategies into

direct and indirect strategies. The strategy used in facing the new language is

called direct strategy. Oxford's direct strategy consists of three parts, a

memory strategy, a cognitive strategy, and a compensation strategy. Oxford's

indirect strategies include metacognitive strategies, affective strategies

(emotional, motivation-related), and social strategies.

 The categories of language learning strategies and language learning

strategies play an important role in the language learning process (Alfian:

2016). This is one of the most important components in language learning.

Language learning strategies are essential for language learning because they

are tools for active and independent movements, which are essential to

develop communicative competences (Oxford, 1990: 14). Further according

to Gursoy (2010) in Alfian (2016) which has stated that language learning

strategies can also create a productive and student-centered learning

environment in which students are encouraged to become autonomous or

independent learners who can control their learning.

The researcher summarizes direct and indirect strategies by Oxford

(1990: 18) as follows:

1. Direct Strategies

According to Oxford (1990: 17) direct strategies are beneficial to students

because they help store and recover information. This strategy helps learners

to generate language even when there is a gap in knowledge. They also help

to understand and use new languages.

a. Memory Strategy

Oxford (1990: 17) states memory strategies are based on simple principles

such as putting things in order, making associations, and reviewing. These

principles are used when a learner faces challenges in vocabulary learning.

Words and phrases can be associated with visual images that can be stored

and retrieved for communication. Many learners make use of visual

images, but some find it easy to connect words and phrases with sound,
 movement, or touch.

b. Cognitive strategies

Oxford (1990: 17) states cognitive strategies as the most popular strategies

among language learners. The target language is manipulated or changed

by repeating, analyzing, or summarizing. The four sets in this group are:

Practicing, Receiving and Sending Messages, Analyzing and Reasoning,

and Creating Structure for Inputs and Outputs.

c. Compensation Strategy

Oxford (1990: 17) states learners use compensatory strategies for the

understanding of the target language when they have an inadequate

knowledge of the target language. This strategy makes up for grammatical

and vocabulary deficiencies. When learners don't know new words and

expressions, they guess their meaning. A learner brings his own life

experience to interpret data by guessing.

2. Indirect strategy

Oxford (1990: 17) states indirect language learning strategies work together

with direct strategies. They help learners organize a process of strategies

supporting and managing language learning without direct involvement and

are therefore called indirect strategies (Oxford, 1990).

a. Metacognitive Strategies

Oxford (1990: 17) states metacognitive strategies are aspects related to the

planning, monitoring and evaluation of language learning processes

(Fewell, 2010: 66). Metacognitive strategies go beyond cognitive

mechanisms and provide learners to coordinate their learning. This helps

them plan language learning in an efficient way. When new vocabulary,

 rules, and writing systems confuse learners, these strategies become

essential to the success of language learning. Song (2004) cited in Alfian

(2016: 151) found that metacognitive strategies are most often used by

students when comparing with cognitive strategies.

b. Affective Strategy

Oxford (1990 :17) states affective strategies relate to the emotional needs

of learners such as the confidence and perseverance that learners need to

actively involve themselves in language learning, for example, lowering

anxiety levels by laughing at their own mistakes (Vlckova,2013:154).

Affective factors such as emotions, attitudes, motivations, and values

influence learning in an important way. Three sets of strategies are

included in this group: Lowering Your Anxiety, Pushing Yourself, and

Taking Your Emotional Temperature. Good language learners control their

attitudes and emotions about learning and understand that negative

feelings hinder learning. Teachers can help evoke positive feelings in the

classroom by giving students more responsibility, increasing the amount of

natural communication, and teaching affective strategies.

c. Social Strategy

Oxford (1990: 17) states language is a form of social behavior: it is

communication, and communication occurs between and between people

(Oxford: 1990: 144) social strategy is essential in learning a language

because language is used in communication and communication occurs

between people. Three sets of strategies are included in this group: Ask

Questions, cooperate with others, and empathize with others. Among the

three, asking questions is the most helpful and the closest to understanding
 its meaning. It also helps in the conversation by generating a response

from the couple and showing interest and engagement. Cooperation with

other parties eliminates petitions and in return brings the spirit of the

group. Studies show that cooperative learning results in higher self-esteem,

increased self-confidence, and rapid achievement

b. Thinking Style

Thinking style is an important part of the learning process. According to

Nasrah (2012: 341) by understanding the diversity of thinking styles that our

students have; we can ensure that students understand what we are teaching even

though they have a very different style from our own.

Zhang (2011: 157) states that the thinking style refers to the way students

prefer to use the abilities they have. Student thinking styles can predict student

satisfaction and their learning engagement. In contrast to Batoret (2007) states the

style of thinking, in principle, value-free, since the same style of thinking can

serve people beautifully in one situation, but may fail miserably in the same

person in another. Understanding thinking styles can make students understand

well why some activities are suitable for them and others are not, and even why

some students fit them well and others do not.

Sternberg (1997) in mental self-governing theory defines 13 thinking styles

classified in 5 dimensions namely:

1. Functions (including legislative, executive, and judicial styles).

a. Legislative Style

According to Sternberg (1997:20) legislative people like to find their own

way of doing things, and prefer to decide for themselves that they have
 done and how they have done it. Legislative people like to make their own

rules and prefer unstructured and prefabricated issues. Ben's example is a

legislative stylist. Some of the preferred types of activities of legislative

stylists are writing creative papers, designing innovative projects, creating

new businesses or educational systems, and creating new things. Some of

the types of jobs the legislature favors are creative writers, scientists,

artists, sculptors, investment bankers, policymakers, and architects.

b. Executive Style

According to Sternberg (1997:21) executive people like to follow the rules

and prefer problems that are pre-structured or prefabricated. They like to

fill in the gaps in the existing structure rather than create the structure

itself. Some of the types of activities they are most likely to do are solving

a given math problem, applying rules to a problem, giving a lecture or

lesson based on someone else's idea, and enforcing the rules. Some jobs

that can suitable for executive thinkers are certain types of lawyers,

patrolling police officers, builders of other delinquents, soldiers, and

administrative assistants.

c. Judisal style

According to Sternberg (1997: 21) judicial people like to evaluate rules

and procedures, and prefer problems in which a person analyzes and

evaluates existing things and ideas. Judicial stylists love activities like

writing criticism, giving opinions, judging people about their work, and

evaluating programs. Some of the types of jobs they prefer are judges,

critics, program evaluators, consultants, admissions officers, grant and

 contract monitors, and systems analysts.

2. Forms (including hierarchical, oligarchic, monarchical, and anarchist styles).

a. Hierarchical style

According to Sternberg (1997: 22) hierarchical people have a hierarchy of

goals and recognize the need to set priorities, since all goals cannot always

be met, or at least fulfilled equally well. This person tends to be more

accepting of complexity and recognizes the need to look at the problem

from a number of angles in order to correctly set priorities.

b. Oligarchic Style

According to Sternberg (1997: 23) the oligarchic person is like a

hierarchical person in having a desire to do more than one thing in time.

But unlike hierarchical people, oligarchic people tend to be motivated by

some often competing goals. Often, these people feel distressed on the

face, competing demands on their time and other resources. They aren't

always sure what to do first, or how much time to allocate to each task

they need to complete. They can be as effective or even more effective

than people with other styles.

c. Monarchical Style

According to Sternberg (1997: 23) a monarchical person is someone who

is single-minded and driven. The individual tends not to let anything get in

the way of him solving the problem. The people of the monarchy can be

relied upon to get things done, given that they have set their minds for it.

d. Anarchist style

According to Sternberg (1997: 23) an anarchist person seems to be

motivated by a potpourri of needs and goals that may be difficult for him,
 as well as for others, to solve. Anarchists take what seems like a random

approach to the problem; They tend to reject systems, and especially rigid

ones, and against any system they see as limiting them.

3. Levels (including global and local styles).

a. Global Style

According to Sternberg (1997: 24) global individuals prefer to deal with

relatively large and abstract problems. They ignore or dislike details, and

prefer to see forests rather than trees. Likes to deal with the big picture,

generalizations, and abstractions.

b. Local Style

According to Sternberg (1997: 24) local individuals like concrete problems

that require work with details. They tend to be pragmatically oriented to a

situation, and grounded. The danger is that they may lose the forest to the

trees. However, some of the worst system failures, such as in flight and

rocketry, have occurred when people ignore what seemed at the time to be

a small detail. Thus, almost all teams need at least a few local individuals.

4. Coverage (including internal and external forces)

a. Internal Style

According to Sternberg (1997: 25) internal individuals are concerned with

internal affairs - that is, these individuals turn inward. They tend to be

introverted, task-oriented, aloof, and sometimes less socially aware. They

like to work alone. Basically, their prefence is to apply their intelligence to

things or ideas separately from others.

b. External Forces
 According to Sternberg (1997: 25) external individuals tend to be

extroverted, outgoing, and people oriented. Often, they are socially

sensitive and aware of what is happening with others. They like to work

with others wherever possible. Many of the questions that arise in

education regarding "what is better?" stem from a fundamental

misunderstanding of the interaction of styles with learning experiences.

5. Tendencies (including liberal and conservative styles)

a. Liberal Style

According to Sternberg (1997: 26) liberal individuals like to go beyond

existing rules and procedures, to maximize change, and to look for rather

ambiguous situations. Individuals are not necessarily "politically" liberal.

A political conservative can have a liberal style of trying to implement,

say, a Republican agenda in a new and all-encompassing way. Thrill

seekers tend to have a liberal style, as do people who, as by and large,

quickly become bored.

b. Conservative Style

According to Sternberg (1997: 26) conservative individuals like to adhere

to existing rules and procedures, minimize changes, avoid ambigious

situations if possible, and stick with familiar situations in work and

professional life. This individual will be happiest in a relatively predictable

structure and environment. When such a structure does not exist,

individuals can strive to create it.

In addition, students use different styles of thinking based on the stylistic

demands of a particular situation. Biggs & Telfer (1987) have shown that

knowledge of students' thinking styles is helpful for educators and

curriculum designers interested in devising effective and applicable

teaching strategies that meet student needs. This is important for the

purpose of the teaching-learning process, which is for students to receive

meaningful knowledge that can be used in new learning situations and

maintained longer in the mind.

Thinking styles can be influenced by variations such as culture, gender,

age, parental style, school, different occupations and social and economic

status. Sternberg (1997: 16) believes that two aspects of culture are

relevant here: the first is that some societies tend to value certain styles

more than others. And the second is that the nature of each individualistic

and collectivistic culture can lead to different styles of thinking. The way

of thinking of style students between men and women is different.

According to Sternberg (1997: 56) men use a higher frequency of force

than women and judge themselves more globally, internally and less

judicially. Parents also influence students' thinking style. Sternberg (1997:

65) states that the way parents react to their children's questions and what

they encourage and reward at home is reflected in their thinking style.

Sternberg (1997: 12) states that thinking styles are related to the processes

of creativity, problem solving and decision making. Sternberg (1997: 17)

expected that the best predictors of the student's thinking style were the

most suitable or best suited to the way classes were conducted and

organized; In other words, student satisfaction with the course will depend

on the consistency of the student's thinking style.

2. Empirical Review

The first research conducted by Fabiana Meijon Fadul, entitled with the

Influence of Learning Strategies and Thinking Styles on Indonesian Learning

Outcomes (2019). The learning outcomes of Indonesian students who have a

concrete sequential thinking style are higher than the abstract sequential thinking

style, the interaction between learning strategies and sequential thinking styles

with the learning outcomes of Indonesian students. The results of the study were

obtained: the learning outcomes of Indonesian students taught with the

Accelerated Learning strategy were higher than the Expository Learning Strategy,

the learning outcomes of Indonesian students who had a concrete sequential

thinking style were higher than the abstract sequential thinking style and there was

an interaction between learning strategies and thinking styles with Indonesian

student learning outcomes. The use of Accelerated Learning Strategies is more

appropriate to use for students who have a concrete sequential thinking style and

expository learning strategies are more appropriately used in students who have

an abstract sequential thinking style.`

The s`econd research was written by Ahmadi, Gorjian and Pazkhah, in

his research he focused on the extent of their association with reading

comprehension among Senior High School students (2013). The aim of his

research was to find out the significance relationship between thinking styles and

use of language learning strategies. That means students‟ thinking styles may

predict their preference of language learning strategies. There was also a positive

and meaningful correlation between legislative and judicial thinking styles and

the total socers of language learning strategies and reading comprehension

performance.
 Mahmood, Hashemnezhad and Javidi research the objectives of the study

was to find out positive relationship between language learning strategies

employed by Senior High School (EFL) students and their thinking styles (2013),

to find out positive relationship between language learning strategies employed by

Senior High School (EFL) students and their gender and to find out a positive

relationship between thinking styles employed by Senior High School (EFL)

students and their gender. And in this research was to know what was the

relationship between language learning strategies and students thinking styles, to

know the effect of learning strategy towards students thinking styles and the

significant correlation between language learning strategy and students thinking

styles.

B. Conceptual Framework

The framework of thinking is a model (image ) in the form of a concept

about the relathionship between one variable and various other factors.

The meaning of the above definitions is that the framework of thinking is a

description of the concept of how a variable has a relathionsip with other

variables

Learning speaking

Speaking Strategies Thinking Style

 Indirect Strategies:  Internal style
 Metacognitive  External style
strategies
 Affective Strategies
 Social Strategies
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

C. Hypothesis

Based on the theoretical explanation above, the hypothesis of this

research is as follow:

1 Hypothesis Null (Ho): There is no correlation between speaking strategy and

student thinking style at SMP Negeri 18 Buton

2 Hypothesis Alternative (Ha): There is a correlation between speaking strategy

and student thinking style at SMP Negeri 18 Buton

 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design

In conducting this research, descriptive quantitative with Correlation

design. A Correlation research design investigates relationship between variables

without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. A correlation

reflects the strength and/or direction of the relationship between two or more

variables.

B. Variable of the Research

There are two types of variables in this research: independent and a

dependent variable. The independent variable in this research is strategies

speaking and the dependent variable is thinking style. This research is conducted

to find out the Correlation between student speaking strategies and their thinking

styles.

C. Time and Place

The time of this research is in the even semester in the school year of

2023/2024. This research will take place at SMP Negeri 18 Buton.

D. Population and Sample

1. Population

The population of this study is the eighth grade of SMP Negeri 18

Buton in the school year 2023/2024 which consists of a total population of

90 students based on the data obtained.

2. Sample
 The sample of this study was 90 samples. The sampling technique in

this study used total sampling or the same population as the sample.

E. Instrument and Technique of Data Collection

1. Instrument

The instrument used in order to get and collect the data in this research

was questionnaire Speaking Strategies and Thinking Style

The questionnaires of Speaking Strategies the researchers Adopted

from Oxford’s LLS (1990) consisting of 10 items questionnaires which

includes Metacognitive strategies, Affective Strategies, and social strategies.

The questionnaires of Thinking Style Adopted from (Sternberg &

wagner, 1992) consisting of 10 items questinnaires which include Internal

style and Eksternal style.

F. Technique of Data Analysis

There are three types of data analysis applied in this research were

descriptive statistic, pre-requisite analysis, and inferential statistic. The data was

calculated using SPSS program 21.

1. Descriptive Statistic

Creswell (2002), stated that descriptive statistic are necessary to show

general tendency (mean, mode, and median) and the distribution of the score

(variance, standard deviation, and range). The descriptive statistic is additionally

used to show the lowest and highest scores. To determine the speaking

strategies and thinking style the questionnaire was administered.

The result of this questionnaire was analyzed by using the following

steps For Speaking Strategies and Thinking Style the questionnaire used in this

research the Likert scale with five optional answer those are strongly agree (SA),
agree (A), neutral (N), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD).

Table 2. Skala Likert

No Statements Score
1 Strongly Agree 5
2 Agree 4
3 Neutral 3
4 Disagree 2
5 Strongly Disagree 1

In analyzing the data, the score of Speaking Strategis and students

thinking style observed by the students was categorized using the following

formula:

(Sudjana, 2005 : 74)

Based on the formula above, the score of language learning strategies

and students thinking style were categorized as follow :

Table. 3 The category of Speaking Strategies

and Thinking Style

1. Score Interval Category

2. 43-50 Very high
3. 35-42 High
4. 27-34 Enough
5. 19-26 Low
1. 10-18 Very low
2. Total

2. Pre-requisite Analysis

The pre-requisite analysis was a requirement placed on the research data

group to ascertain whether the data could actually be used for statistical analysis

or not. A linearity test and homogeneity test were used in this research

a. Linearity test
Linearity test was used to know whether the two variants have a linear
 correlation or not. The regression linearity test was used on these variant with

one-way F-test (ANOVA) to decide the degree of linearity it could be seen at

the result of deviation from linearity. If the alpha (α) (Sig. ≥ 0,05). The

correlation between these two variables was linear.

3. Inferential Statistic

According to Sugiyono (2013), inferential statistics is a technique of

statistics that is used to examine simple data and then apply the findings to the

population. If the sample was drawn from the obvious population and the method

used to choose the sample from the population was randomly selected then this

type of statistic are prospered.

The Person Product Moment Correlation was used to find out the

correlation between Speaking Strategies and Thinking Style. Frist of all, the

students‘ performance is recorded when they performed speaking test. The data

was analyzed by directing to the rating scale, namely oral proficiency scoring

categories from Brown (2004: 172-173).

To find out the correlation between Speaking Strategies and Thinking

Style the kind of analysis used SPSS version 21 software was correlation analysis

with determining the value of significance (α) = 0.05. The criteria of receiving or

rejecting the hypothesis are as follows :

a. If the probability value (sig. (2-tailed)) >0,05, the alternative hypothesis (Ha)

was rejected. It means there was not any significant correlation between

Speaking Strategies and Thinking Style.

b. If the probability value (sig. (2 tailed) <0,05, the alternative hypothesis (Ha)

was accepted. It means there was a significant correlation between Speaking

Strategies and Thinking Style.

 To determine coefficient correlation, the researchers used the criteria in

the following table.

Tabel 4. Product Moment

The Number of
No. Classification
Product Moment
1. 0.0 – 0.20 very low
2. 0.20 – 0.40 Low
3. 0.40 – 0.70 Moderate
4. 0.70 – 0.90 High
5. 0.90 – 100 very high
 CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

A. Finding

The research findings present and discuss the answers to research statements

related to the correlation between speaking strategies and the thinking styles of

eighth-grade students at SMP Negeri 18 Buton.

1. Descriptive Statistical Data

To analyze data on Speaking Strategies and students' Thinking Styles, the

researchers used a frequency distribution table. The frequency distribution table

here is used to describe the distribution characteristics and scores of each variable

(Speaking Strategies and Thinking Styles). Descriptive statistical summary can be

seen in the following table.

Tabel 5
Test Result of Summary of Descriptive Statistics
Statistik Speaking Strategies Thinking Style
Mean 29.93 36.60
Median 30.00 36.00
SD 6.730 6.274
Min Score 11 17
Max Score 45 50

Source: Data processed in 2024

2. Results of Student Speaking Strategy Questionnaire

The data analysis from 90 respondents in Grade VIII at SMP Negeri 18

Buton regarding language strategies shows that the highest score for language

strategies is 45 and the lowest score is 11. The median for strategies is 30.

Descriptive statistical analysis indicates that the average for language learning
strategies is 30.00 and the standard deviation for language strategies is 6.730. The

detailed frequency distribution can be seen in the following table.

Tabel 6
Test Result of Speaking Strategies Distribution Score
Top of Form

Score
Frequency Percentage Category
Interval

43-50 1 1,1% Very High

35-42 24 26,7% High
27-34 36 40,0% Moderate
19-26 24 26,7% Low
10-18 5 5,6% Very Low

Total 90 100,00

Source: Data processed in 2024

Based on the table above, it is known that out of 90 respondents for the

distribution of students' language strategy scores, one student chose the Very High

category, accounting for 1 person with a percentage of (1.1%). Next, students who

chose the High category were 24 people with a percentage of (26.7%), students

who chose the Fair category were 36 people with a percentage of (40%), students

who chose the Low category were 24 people with a percentage of (26.7%), and

students who chose the Very Low category were 5 people with a percentage of

(5.6%). Therefore, it can be concluded that the students' language strategies are in

the Fair category because the majority of students received a Fair score.

3. Results of Student Thinking Style Questionnaire

The data analysis from 90 respondents in Grade VIII at SMP Negeri 18

Buton regarding students' thinking styles shows that the highest score for thinking

styles is 50 and the lowest score is 17. The median for thinking styles is 36.00.
Descriptive statistical analysis indicates that the average for thinking styles is

36.60 and the standard deviation for students' thinking styles is 6.274. The

detailed frequency distribution can be seen in the following table.

Table 7
Test Result of Distribution Score Thinking Style

Score
Frequency Percentage Category
Interval

43-50 17 18,9% Very High

35-42 41 45,6% High
27-34 28 31,1% Moderate
19-26 3 3,3% Low
10-18 1 1,1% Very Low

Total 90 100,00

Source: Data processed in 2024

Based on the table above, it is known that out of 90 respondents, the

distribution of student thinking style scores choosing the Very High category

amounted to 17 people with a percentage of (18.9%). Next, students who chose

the High category were 41 people with a percentage of (45.6%), students who

chose the Fair category were 28 people with a percentage of (31.1%), students

who chose the Low category were 3 people with a percentage of (3.3%), and

students who chose the Very Low category were 1 person with a percentage of

(1.1%). Therefore, it can be concluded that the students' thinking styles are in the

High category because most students scored highly.

4. Prerequisite Analysis
 In the perquisite analysis, two variables were tested whether they run

normally and linearly between variables x and variable y so that the hypothesis

can be tested later.

a. Linearity Testing

Linearity test was conducted to find out whether the two variables

have a linear connection or not. A linear connection exists between the two

variables if sig. on the line Deviation from linearity greater than 0.05 or by

comparing the estimated value of F listed in the ANOVA table from the

output of the SPSS application with F table. The result of the linearity test can

be seen in the following table:

 Table 8.
Linearity Testing Statistical Analysis
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
Squares Df Square F Sig.
(Combined) 1407.549 27 52.131 1.542 .081
Thinking Between Linearity 762.752 1 762.752 22.562 .000
Style * Groups Deviation from 644.796 26 24.800 .734 .807
Speaking Linearity
Strategi Within Groups 2096.051 62 33.807
Total 3503.600 89

Based on the table above, the value of Sig. Deviation from linearity

was 0.807. Then the value Sig. Deviation from linearity was greater than the

value of α (0.05). Due to the sig value. Deviation from linearity was greater

than 0.05 (0. 0.807>0.05). This means that relationship of the independent

variable to the dependent variable was linear, because the above data was

normally and linearly distributed then, a statistical inferential test was carried

out by using the Pearson Correlation moment.

5. Inferential Statistics

Inferential statistics was presented as a result of hypothesis testing using

SPSS version 21 using Pearson Correlation Coefficient analysis. Used to prove

whether the hypothesis was rejected of accepted. The result of Pearson

Correlation statistical analysis can be seen in the following table:

Tabel 9 Correlation Table

Correlations
Speaking Strategi Thinking Style
Pearson 1 .467**
Speaking Correlation
Strategi Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 90 90
Thinking Style Pearson .467** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
 N 90 90
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source: Data processed in 2024

Based on the correlation table above, it can be concluded that the score of

Pearson Correlation is 0.467.

Table 10. Relationship Degree Guideline

The Number of
No. Classification
Product Moment
1. 0.0 – 0.20 very low
2. 0.20 – 0.40 Low
3. 0.40 – 0.70 Moderate
4. 0.70 – 0.90 High
5. 0.90 – 100 very high
Source: Data processed in 2024

Because the score of Pearson Correlation is 0.467 and the alpha (α) value

was sig. α < 0.05 (0.000 < 0.05). It can be concluded that the two variables were

correlated and there was a significant correlation. Because the sig. α < 0.05 it can

be concluded that Ha was accepted and H0 was rejected. This means that the two

variables have a significant correlation at high correlated level.

B. Discussion

The average Speaking Strategy score for students is 29.93. The median

Speaking Strategy score for students is 30.00. The standard deviation of Speaking

Strategy for students is 6.730. The maximum score for Speaking Strategy is 45,

and the minimum score for Speaking Strategy is 11. Based on the average score, it

can be concluded that the Speaking Strategy is in the "Fair" category.

Furthermore, in the descriptive statistical analysis, the average thinking style score

for students is 36.60. The median thinking style score for students is 36.00. The

standard deviation of thinking styles for students is 6.274. The maximum score for

language learning strategies is 50, and the minimum score for thinking style
strategies is 17. Based on the average score, it can be concluded that the students'

thinking styles are in the "High" category because most students received high

scores.

For the correlation between Speaking Strategi and Thinking Style, a

correlation score of 0.467 was obtained for the correlation score. This score

indicates that there was a high correlation between Speaking Strategi and

Thinking Style. Based on the previous table of score anxiety category, the

correlation category was in the high category. Based on the result of the

correlation, it can also be found that the data has a lower significance value than

alpha (sig. 2 tailed ≤ 0.05) where there was a significant correlation between the

two variables. From these data it can be concluded that Ha was accepted and H0

was rejected. Based on the results there was a significant correlation Speaking

Strategi and Thinking Style on eight grades at SMP Negeri 18 Buton. And the

correlation between Speaking Strategi and Thinking Style was in the high

category.

This research is in line with the study conducted by La Ode Supardi,

Baharudin, and Yunita Sari (2021). The hypothesis testing results indicate that

there is a significant correlation between language learning strategies and students'

thinking styles. The correlation coefficient value (rxy) between language learning

strategies and students' thinking styles is r = 0.387 with a low correlation category

and a significant value sig = 0.014 < α = 0.05, which indicates that there is a

significant correlation between language learning strategies and students' thinking

styles.

Finally, from the data above, it can be concluded that there was a strong

correlation between Speaking Strategies and Thinking Styles and there was also a
significant correlation between the variable on grade eight students‘ at SMP

Negeri 18 Buton.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGESSTION

A. Conclusion

Based on the research findings and data analysis presented in the

previous chapter, it can be concluded that the Speaking Strategies category has an

average value of 29.93 and the Thinking Styles category is in the High category

with an average value of 36.60. The correlation between Speaking Strategies and

Thinking Styles is in the High correlation category, which is obtained because the

correlation value between these two variables is 0.467. It can also be seen from

the significance value which is sig. α < 0.05 (0.000 < 0.05), because the

significance value is lower than alpha (α), it can be concluded that Ha is accepted

and H0 is rejected. In other words, there is a significant correlation between

Speaking Strategies and Thinking Styles. It can be concluded that there is a

significant correlation and it is in the strong correlation category in the speaking

strategies and Thinking Styles of eighth-grade students at SMP 18 Buton.

B. Suggestion

1. Recommendation for students to improve their speaking strategies and

thinking styles by increasing their awareness of the importance of both.

Students can train themselves by participating more often in class

 discussions, speaking in public, and getting used to thinking critically and

creatively in problem-solving.

2. For future research, it is suggested to expand the research sample to other

schools or higher levels of education to see if the results are consistent.

Additionally, the research can be more in-depth by considering other factors

that may affect students' speaking strategies and thinking styles, such as the

learning environment and the teaching methods used.

 REFERENCES

Ajleaa, (2015). The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and

Motivation in Learning English as A Second Language.

Alfian. (2016). Application of language learning strategies for high school

students in the country. Ijee (Indonesian English education journal).

Alhaysony, M. (2017). Leanguage learning strategy use by saudia efl students:

the effect of duration of english language study and gender. University of
hail, vol7 no 1

Asep Jolly, 2004. Japanese Speaking Learning Model with a Communicative

Approach.

Batoret, F, D. (2007) The influence of student and teacher thinking styles on

student course satisfaction and the learning process. Faume University
vol.27, no.2.

Biggs, J.B. and Telfer, R. (1987). Learning process. Sydney: Prentice-Hall of

Australia Pty Ltd

Djago Tarigan, (1997). Education and Indonesian Literary Language in the Low
Grade. Jakarta: Open University.

Dweck, C. S. (2006) New psychology of united stated success: random house

Felder, M. R. (1995). Learning and Teaching Styles in foreign and second

Language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1),21-3.

Gay, L.R. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application.

Colombus: Charles E. Merill Publishing Company. 1981

Ghani, M. (2003) language learning strategies: a general overview. Iraq: elsevier

Ltd

Haryadi and ZamZami. (1997). Improvement of Indonesian Language Skills.

Jakarta: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Hendrikus, Wuwur. 1991. Rhetoric. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Ismail, N. M. (2012) The Use of Learning Styles, Thinking Styles and Student
Attitudes to Predict English Achievement at the College Level. Taif
University Voll 77, 333-374

Juwita, et al (2015). Correlation Between Students Language Learning Strategies

and Their Thinking Styles at High School. Lampung; UNILA Journal of
English Teaching

Mahmood, K. B. (2013) the relationship between leanguage learning strategies

and thinking style of iran EFL learners international journal of research
studies in language. 3-19

Nurgiyantoro, Burhan. 2001. Assessment in Language and Literature Teaching.

Yogyakarta: BPFE.

Nyikos, M. (1990). Sex-related differences in the socialization of adult language

learning and memory factors. Journal of modern languages, 74 (3), 273-287

Oxford, R. (1989) the role of styles and strategies in second language learning.
ERIC Digest, ERIC Clearing House and Linguistic washington DC

Oxford, R. L. (1990) languaage learning strategies: what every teacher should

know. Boston: heinle&henle

Park., G. (2010). Investigation into Learning Strategies Used by Effective and Less
Effective EFL Learners in korea. South Korea: Soonchunhyang University

Razavi, A., & Shiri, A. (2005) com parative study on thinking styles of boys and
girls of high school and their academic achievement. Innovation in
education journal. 12(4), 35-45.

St. Y. Slamet, (2007). Basics of Indonesian Language Skills. Surakarta: Sebelas

Maret University Press.

Sternberg, R. J (1997). Style of Thinking. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Sugiono (2017). Statistika untuk penelitian. bandung: alfabeta

Sugiyono 2010). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, kualitatif,

dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta

Susanto, Ahmad. (2013). Learning and Learning Theory in Primary Schools.

Jakarta: Kencana Prenadamedia Group.

Tarigan, H. Thunder. (1984), Basic Principles of Literature. Bandung: Space.

Zare, Pezhman. & Noordin (2011). The Relationship Between the Use of
Language Learning Strategies and Reading Comprehension Achievement
Among Iranian Undergraduate EFL Learners.

Zhang. (2011) Thinking Styles and Conceptions of Creativity Among College

Students. Vol.31, no. 3 University of Brussels.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1

A. QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTION

1. Fill in your identity in the provided column.

2. Answer by selecting the most appropriate response for you by checking (√) the
box next to the question/statement below:
SA : Strongly Agree (Sangat Setuju) 5
A : Agree (Setuju) 4
N : Neutral (Netral) 3
D : Disagree (Tidak Setuju) 2
SD : Strongly Disangree (Sangat Tidak
1
Setuju)

There should be no more than one answer or check mark ( √ ) per number
B. Respondent's Identity
Name :

Age :

Gender :

C. List of Statements

SPEAKINGSTRATEGIS

SA A N D SD
No. Peryataan
5 4 3 2 1
1. I pay attention when someone speaks in
English.

(Saya memperhatikan ketika seseorang

berbicara dalam bahasa inggris)
2. I'm looking for a friend or partner whom I
can speak English with.

(Saya mencari teman atau partner yang

bisa saya ajak untuk berbicara bahasa
Inggris)
3. I'm trying to find out my English
mistakesto improve my skills.

Saya mencari tahu kesalahan bahasa

inggris saya untuk memperbaiki
kemampuan saya
4. I try to relax when I'm afraid to use English
when speaking.

(Saya mencoba untuk rileks ketika saya

takut dalam menggunakan bahasa
inggris ketika berbicara)
5. I push myself to speak English even when
I'm afraid of making mistakes.

(Saya memaksakan diri saya untuk

berbicara bahasa Inggris bahkan ketika
saya takut membuat kesalahan)
6. I talk to others about my feelings when
learning to speak English.

(Saya berbicara kepada orang lain

mengenai perasaan saya ketika belajar
berbicara menggunakan bahasa inggris)
7. I ask native English speakers to correct
me when I speak English.

(Saya meminta penutur asli bahasa

inggris untuk mengoreksi saya ketika
saya berbicara bahasa inggris)
8. I ask questions in English to others.

(Saya mengajukan pertanyaan dalam

bahasa inggris kepada orang lain)
9. I try to learn about the culture of native
English speakers.

(Saya mencoba untuk belajar tentang

budaya penutur asli bahasa inggris)
10 I try to learn English while watching
TV/videos

(Saya mencoba belajar bahasa Inggris

sambil menonton TV/video)

THINKING STYLE

SA A N D SD
No. Peryataan 5 4 3 2 1
1. I like to take full control of a task,
without consulting others.

(Saya suka mengambil alih

penuh suatu pekerjaan, tanpa
berkonsultasi dengan orang lain)
2. When trying to make a specific
decision, I trust my own judgment
more.

(Ketika mencoba membuat suatu

keputusan tertentu, saya lebih percaya
pada penilaian saya sendiri)
3. I like to work alone on a
task/problem.

(Saya suka bekerja sendiri dlm

sebuah tugas/masalah)
4. I like jobs that I can do on my own.

(Saya menyukai pekerjaan yang bisa

saya kerjakan sendiri)
5. I prefer situations where I can
express my own ideas without
having to trust others.

(Saya lebih suka keadaan dimana

saya bisa mengeluarkan ide saya
sendiri tanpa harus mempercayai
orang lain)
6. When starting a task, I like to
express my opinion with my friends
or peers.

(Ketika memulai tugas, saya suka

mengungkapkan pendapat dengan
teman-teman saya atau rekan
sebaya)
7. In discussions or reports, I like to
combine my ideas with others.

(Di dalam berdiskusi atau laporan,

saya suka menggabungkan ide saya
dengan yang lainnya)
8. I like to participate in activities
where I can interact with other
colleagues as a team.
 (Saya suka berpartisipasi di dalam
sebuah aktifitas dimana saya dapat
berinteraksi dengan rekan lain
sebagai tim)
9. When working on a task, I like to
share ideas and accept input from
others. I like situations where I can
interact with others and work with
them.

(Ketika bekerja pada suatu

pekerjaan, saya suka berbagi ide dan
menerima masukan dari org lain
Saya suka situasi dimana saya bisa
berinteraksi dengan yang lain dan
bekerja sama dengan mereka.)
10. I like situations where I can interact
with others and work with them.

(Saya suka situasi dimana saya bisa

berinteraksi dengan yang lain dan
bekerja sama dengan mereka)
 APPENDIX 2

TABULASI DATA ANGKET

SPEAKING STATEGIS
SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA Tota
Responden L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 l Katogori
1 3 1 4 2 4 5 1 4 2 4 30 Cukup
2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 4 18 Sangat Rendah
3 5 4 4 1 4 4 2 3 4 4 35 Tinggi
4 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 18 Sangat Rendah
5 5 1 4 3 4 2 1 3 4 1 28 Cukup
6 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 25 Renda
7 5 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 5 5 28 Cukup
8 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 19 Renda
9 4 1 4 3 2 4 2 2 2 4 28 Cukup
10 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 5 24 Renda
11 1 2 1 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 22 Renda
12 1 2 1 5 1 3 1 2 2 1 19 Renda
13 4 3 1 1 2 3 3 5 3 2 27 Cukup
14 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 4 1 1 25 Renda
15 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 26 Renda
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 Sangat Rendah
17 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 21 Renda
18 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 32 Cukup
19 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 3 45 Sangat Tinggi
20 3 3 4 2 2 2 4 5 4 5 34 Cukup
21 4 2 3 1 5 2 3 3 1 3 27 Cukup
22 3 2 5 4 1 3 3 4 4 3 32 Cukup
23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 17 Sangat Rendah
24 5 3 4 2 5 3 2 4 5 3 36 Tinggi
25 5 4 5 4 5 1 1 1 2 2 30 Cukup
26 2 2 2 3 5 5 2 1 4 2 28 Cukup
27 3 3 4 5 3 4 4 3 3 3 35 Tinggi
28 5 2 5 3 5 3 2 4 1 2 32 Cukup
29 5 5 3 4 2 5 4 3 1 2 34 Cukup
30 2 1 4 4 1 4 2 4 3 5 30 Cukup
31 3 1 2 4 5 2 1 2 2 2 24 Renda
32 5 1 5 5 5 2 5 2 5 1 36 Tinggi
33 5 5 4 5 3 5 4 1 1 1 34 Cukup
34 4 5 5 5 2 3 5 4 2 2 37 Tinggi
35 4 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 25 Renda
36 3 4 5 3 1 4 5 3 5 3 36 Tinggi
37 4 3 4 4 3 4 5 4 1 4 36 Tinggi
38 4 2 4 5 4 3 2 1 3 4 32 Cukup
39 5 4 5 4 4 2 5 4 2 3 38 Tinggi
40 5 1 5 3 1 2 1 5 5 2 30 Cukup
41 5 5 5 4 3 3 2 5 3 4 39 Tinggi
42 5 2 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 40 Tinggi
43 5 4 5 2 2 4 5 4 3 2 36 Tinggi
44 5 3 4 4 4 1 3 4 5 3 36 Tinggi
 45 3 4 3 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 24 Renda
46 5 2 5 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 25 Renda
47 5 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 22 Renda
48 5 1 5 3 2 3 5 1 4 5 34 Cukup
49 1 3 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 23 Renda
50 5 4 5 5 3 3 2 3 3 4 37 Tinggi
51 5 1 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 3 42 Tinggi
52 2 2 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 37 Tinggi
53 3 2 4 5 5 5 1 4 4 1 34 Cukup
54 5 5 4 4 2 3 4 1 3 4 35 Tinggi
55 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 20 Renda
56 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 18 Sangat Rendah
57 1 1 4 4 1 4 4 3 4 4 30 Cukup
58 4 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 24 Renda
59 2 5 4 4 2 3 2 5 2 4 33 Cukup
60 5 5 5 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 40 Tinggi
61 5 5 5 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 40 Tinggi
62 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 1 2 29 Cukup
63 5 4 5 2 4 2 5 3 1 4 35 Tinggi
64 4 1 5 2 5 4 2 1 3 2 29 Cukup
65 2 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 40 Tinggi
66 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 23 Renda
67 3 3 5 2 3 2 4 4 4 4 34 Cukup
68 3 4 4 5 3 3 5 2 2 5 36 Tinggi
69 5 5 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 4 37 Tinggi
70 3 3 3 2 5 4 2 3 4 5 34 Cukup
71 3 2 4 3 5 2 2 4 3 3 31 Cukup
72 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 3 5 2 27 Cukup
73 3 3 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 41 Tinggi
74 1 4 1 5 4 2 1 4 1 4 27 Cukup
75 1 1 3 4 5 1 3 1 2 2 23 Renda
76 1 3 4 2 5 1 3 2 5 5 31 Cukup
77 4 3 4 3 1 2 2 5 2 4 30 Cukup
78 4 2 4 5 4 5 2 2 2 2 32 Cukup
79 3 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 24 Renda
80 4 1 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 24 Renda
81 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 3 1 3 31 Cukup
82 5 4 5 5 2 3 5 4 4 5 42 Tinggi
83 3 3 1 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 24 Renda
84 1 1 5 5 1 5 1 2 2 1 24 Renda
85 3 1 4 5 3 5 3 1 3 1 29 Cukup
86 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 2 3 2 29 Cukup
87 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 1 1 3 26 Renda
88 5 4 1 4 3 1 2 1 1 4 26 Renda
89 4 4 3 3 1 2 2 4 3 4 30 Cukup
90 5 5 4 3 3 5 4 1 2 1 33 Cukup

APPENDIX 3

THINKING STYLE
SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA SOA
Responden L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L 10 Total Katogori
 1 3 4 4 5 4 2 3 4 1 2 32 Cukup
2 1 1 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 17 Sangat Rendah
3 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 3 3 3 38 Tinggi
4 1 4 3 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 25 Renda
5 3 4 3 2 3 5 3 4 5 3 35 Tinggi
6 2 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 1 27 Cukup
7 1 5 4 5 3 1 4 5 4 3 35 Tinggi
8 1 4 1 4 4 2 1 1 3 1 22 Renda
9 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 1 3 35 Tinggi
10 1 1 3 5 4 5 4 3 5 5 36 Tinggi
11 3 4 4 5 5 4 1 4 5 5 40 Tinggi
12 2 3 1 5 1 2 3 4 4 3 28 Cukup
13 1 4 3 5 4 1 4 4 4 5 35 Tinggi
14 1 5 5 5 4 4 5 1 5 5 40 Tinggi
15 3 4 4 5 1 5 5 3 5 3 38 Tinggi
16 1 4 3 3 4 1 1 4 4 4 29 Cukup
17 2 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 36 Tinggi
18 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 43 Sangat Tinggi
19 3 4 4 4 3 5 4 5 3 5 40 Tinggi
20 5 3 2 5 4 4 5 3 4 4 39 Tinggi
21 3 5 5 4 1 1 3 5 1 5 33 Cukup
22 2 3 4 1 4 3 5 4 4 3 33 Cukup
23 3 5 3 4 4 1 1 4 1 1 27 Cukup
24 5 5 4 1 4 2 4 4 2 4 35 Tinggi
25 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 46 Sangat Tinggi
26 3 5 1 1 3 1 2 4 2 4 26 Renda
27 3 3 4 5 3 4 1 4 5 4 36 Tinggi
28 1 3 3 5 2 5 4 5 1 2 31 Cukup
29 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50 Sangat Tinggi
30 3 4 5 5 3 4 1 1 4 3 33 Cukup
31 2 3 5 1 5 3 4 5 5 5 38 Tinggi
32 2 3 1 5 5 4 2 5 1 5 33 Cukup
33 5 5 4 2 4 5 4 3 1 3 36 Tinggi
34 5 5 3 5 4 3 2 1 1 5 34 Cukup
35 3 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 40 Tinggi
36 1 5 5 5 4 5 1 3 2 4 35 Tinggi
37 4 3 5 5 3 5 2 5 5 5 42 Tinggi
38 4 3 3 5 4 3 3 1 1 5 32 Cukup
39 4 2 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 44 Sangat Tinggi
40 1 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 3 5 41 Tinggi
41 4 4 3 1 4 5 4 5 4 5 39 Tinggi
42 2 3 4 5 1 5 5 4 5 4 38 Tinggi
43 4 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 46 Sangat Tinggi
44 1 4 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 5 41 Tinggi
45 3 4 1 4 3 1 4 3 3 4 30 Cukup
46 3 4 3 4 5 1 1 1 3 5 30 Cukup
47 1 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 42 Tinggi
48 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 46 Sangat Tinggi
49 2 1 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 40 Tinggi
50 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 48 Sangat Tinggi
51 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 43 Sangat Tinggi
52 2 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 45 Sangat Tinggi
53 5 1 3 5 5 4 3 3 4 1 34 Cukup
54 5 1 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 43 Sangat Tinggi
55 3 1 1 5 3 4 4 4 1 4 30 Cukup
56 2 1 5 4 5 1 5 5 5 2 35 Tinggi
57 1 3 1 5 3 5 1 1 5 5 30 Cukup
58 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 47 Sangat Tinggi
59 2 4 4 5 3 4 3 1 5 5 36 Tinggi
60 2 1 5 5 5 3 2 3 5 5 36 Tinggi
61 2 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 46 Sangat Tinggi
62 2 4 1 5 3 3 4 3 3 3 31 Cukup
63 2 5 3 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 40 Tinggi
64 2 4 4 5 1 4 3 4 2 5 34 Cukup
65 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 35 Tinggi
66 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 47 Sangat Tinggi
67 4 5 3 1 4 1 4 4 3 3 32 Cukup
68 2 3 2 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 38 Tinggi
69 4 4 4 1 2 4 5 5 5 5 39 Tinggi
70 2 2 2 5 3 3 3 2 3 2 27 Cukup
71 5 3 2 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 42 Tinggi
72 3 5 5 5 2 3 4 3 5 5 40 Tinggi
73 5 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 43 Sangat Tinggi
74 5 4 4 5 4 1 4 5 4 5 41 Tinggi
75 2 1 1 4 3 5 3 3 3 5 30 Cukup
76 5 1 2 5 3 4 1 5 3 5 34 Cukup
77 5 4 5 4 3 1 4 5 3 4 38 Tinggi
78 2 2 4 5 2 4 4 5 5 5 38 Tinggi
79 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 4 3 3 32 Cukup
80 4 4 3 1 4 3 4 2 2 1 28 Cukup
81 1 1 3 4 3 4 3 5 5 5 34 Cukup
82 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 44 Sangat Tinggi
83 2 2 3 5 3 2 1 5 3 3 29 Cukup
84 1 4 4 5 5 5 5 2 1 5 37 Tinggi
85 4 3 3 4 1 5 5 4 5 5 39 Tinggi
86 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 45 Sangat Tinggi
87 1 3 3 5 1 4 4 5 4 4 34 Cukup
88 2 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 45 Sangat Tinggi
89 4 4 1 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 39 Tinggi
90 5 3 4 5 4 2 4 3 5 4 39 Tinggi

APPENDIX 4
 SPEAKING STRATEGIES STATISTIC ANALYSIS

Statistics
Soal Soal Soal Soal Soal Soal Soal Soal Soal Soal Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Valid 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
N
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.41 2.73 3.52 3.16 3.04 2.89 2.69 2.84 2.77 2.88 29.93
Median 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 30.00
Mode 5 2 4 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 24
Std. Deviation 1.468 1.314 1.384 1.306 1.357 1.276 1.338 1.271 1.307 1.235 6.730
Variance 2.155 1.726 1.915 1.706 1.841 1.628 1.790 1.616 1.709 1.524 45.299
Skewness -.442 .267 -.671 -.140 .028 .246 .419 -.037 .322 .164 -.193
Std. Error of .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254
Skewness
- - -.807 - - - - - - - -.319
Kurtosis
1.131 1.045 1.052 1.256 1.040 1.065 1.111 1.040 1.024
Std. Error of .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503
Kurtosis
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 34
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 45
Sum 307 246 317 284 274 260 242 256 249 259 2694

APPENDIX 5
 THINKING STYLES STATISTIC ANALYSIS
Statistics
Soal 1 Soal Soal Soal 4 Soal Soal Soal Soal Soal Soal Total
2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10
Valid 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
N
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 2.82 3.61 3.58 4.33 3.61 3.51 3.60 3.84 3.64 4.04 36.60
Std. Error of Mean .144 .136 .135 .128 .135 .148 .146 .133 .150 .127 .661
a a a a a a a a a a
Median 2.70 3.82 3.75 4.62 3.79 3.77 3.93 4.11 3.97 4.31 36.57a
Mode 2 4 4b 5 5 5 4b 5 5 5 35
Std. Deviation 1.370 1.287 1.281 1.218 1.278 1.408 1.389 1.262 1.425 1.208 6.274
Variance 1.878 1.656 1.640 1.483 1.634 1.983 1.928 1.594 2.029 1.459 39.366
.248 -.786 -.669 - -.716 -.579 -.765 -.968 -.705 -1.183 -.302
Skewness
1.968
Std. Error of .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254
Skewness
- -.306 -.474 2.717 -.389 -.937 -.667 -.009 -.777 .515 .133
Kurtosis
1.149
Std. Error of .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503 .503
Kurtosis
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 33
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50
Sum 254 325 322 390 325 316 324 346 328 364 3294

APPENDIX 6
 LINEARITY TESTING

ANOVA Table
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
(Combined) 1407.549 27 52.131 1.542 .081
Between Linearity 762.752 1 762.752 22.562 .000
Thinking Style * Groups Deviation from 644.796 26 24.800 .734 .807
Speaking Strategi Linearity
Within Groups 2096.051 62 33.807
Total 3503.600 89

APPENDIX 7

CORRELATION ANALYSIS
Correlations
Speaking
Thinking Style
Strategi
Pearson Correlation 1 .467**
Speaking Strategi Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 90 90
Pearson Correlation .467** 1
Thinking Style Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 90 90
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

APPENDIX 8
DOCUMENTATION
APPENDIX 9
APPENDIX 10