Skripsi Korelasi
Skripsi Korelasi
Skripsi Korelasi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents: (1) background; (2) problems of the study; (3)
1.1 Background
Among all languages in the world, English is one of those languages which
is widely used by people around the world. Randolph (1980, p. 7) states that English
compulsory subject in junior high school, senior high school and university in
Indonesia. Based on BSNP (2006, p. 124), there are some goals of teaching English
in the High School level. One of them is to communicate oral and written language.
English, they are speaking, writing, reading, and listening." Thus, the teaching and
As mentioned previously, there are four basic language skills that students
have to master which one of them is listening skill. Having good mastery in
Bozorgian (2012, p. 2) claims that listening skill occupies almost 50% of our daily
occupied the main aspects of the smooth communication for human in daily life.
master foreign language is having good listening skill. Hamouda (2013, p. 113)
states that no one can deny the importance of listening skill in foreign language
learning because the key to acquire the language is to receive language input.
Mastering one of the skills will help students in learning the other skills. Rost (2002,
proficiency in speaking. Not surprisingly, listening has a critical priority among the
listening, students have to pay much attention, they have to concentrate, and
sometimes they feel asleep during the lesson. It also needs a quiet situation without
any noise because when there is a lot of noise, listening in English will be hard to
serious problems in English listening comprehension due to the fact that teachers
pay more attention to English grammar, reading, and vocabulary. He also claims
that students seem to learn listening, not listening comprehension. Students usually
listen to a text, respond to questions, and check their answers. Goh (2000, p. 59-60)
students: 1) quickly forget what is heard; 2) do not recognize words they know; 3)
3
understand words but not intended the message; 4) neglect the next part when
thinking about meaning; 5) are unable to form a mental representation from words
heard; 6) cannot chunk streams of speech; 7) miss the beginning of the texts; 8)
of input because of earlier problems; and 10) are confused about the key ideas in
the message. Malkawi (2010, p. 773) also mentions that there are three listening
problems that senior high school students usually face in listening comprehension.
p. 1728) thinking styles are the mental frameworks that describe how process of
information and ability to solve the problem in the special situations. Furthermore,
Mahmood, Hossein, and Sharooz (2013, p. 5) add that thinking styles focus to the
question on how one thinks which is different from how well one thinks. In short,
thinking styles can be defined as how a person process information add figure out
Thinking styles are, in principle, value free, for the same thinking
styles can result one person beautifully in one situation, but may fail
the same person awfully in another situation. It shows that everybody
has different thinking styles. Thinking styles are cognitive
preferences, which affect how an individual behaves and feels, and
selected as a cognition representative for this study. (Zhang 2004,
p. 235).
Garcia (2010, p. 6) claims that thinking styles play a role in many important
aspects of wellbeing and life success. Understanding diversity of their thinking and
4
learning styles are indicators that can help poor students to be successful from their
failure (Navan, 2015, p. 1699). Also, he argues that understanding various thinking
styles helps people to adjust their thoughts with different thinking styles and
psychology is the ways students think as one of the most important predictors of
perceived success in school. Negahi (2015) describes some studies that thinking
achievement. It means that if student can identify their comfortable thinking styles,
they have ability to solve problem and make right decision in their aspects of life.
different situations may lead to elimination of the most important valuable talents
as well as big potential to achieve successfully. He indicated that teachers are not
aware of diversity of the students thinking styles. Sharma (2011, p. 115) also adds
if teachers are failed in caring the students thinking styles, it will arise the serious
consequences, because the teachers may tend to confuse styles of students mind.
He adds the students who have the same thinking styles as the teachers are only
benefited and rewarded, but others are not. Meanwhile, successes and failures
attributed to abilities often stem from styles. A teacher should know that the weak
performance of a student is not always due to the lack of ability but because of the
(Negahi, 2015, p. 1723). Therefore, it is very important for teacher who will be one
5
In accordance with the explanation above related to listening and thinking style,
a preliminary study was conducted by interviewing the teacher of English and the
students of MAN 2 Palembang. Several problems were found during the preliminary
study. First, the teacher said that the way of teaching that she used in the class
was still fairly old teaching method so that she felt that the students were not
comfortable and bored in learning listening skill in the classroom. Second, the
teacher said that she rarely taught listening skill in the class because she focused
on reading comprehension. Third, she said the problems were various among
students and the biggest difficulty for students that they faced in the class was
listening skill. It means that they felt listening skill was more difficult than the
other skills. Because they didnt know what the speaker was talking about and it
was hard for them to comprehend it well. Fourth, she said that some of them still
had a bad listening skill. The last, the students didnt know about what thinking
than fifteen eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Palembang. Some problems were
also found. First, they felt that listening skill was the most difficult skill, because in
listening activities they couldnt concentrate well and they were still confused about
what the speaker was talking about. Second, they said that the teacher rarely taught
listening skill from meeting to meeting. Third, they had low motivation in learning
English especially listening skill. Last, they didnt know what thinking styles were,
6
what their own thinking styles were and how to apply it in the class.
explored those related variables. Ahmadi, Gorjian, and Pazhakh (2016) found
the contrary, Sari, (2017) found a weak correlation between thinking styles and
writing achievement of the tenth grade students of MAN 1 Palembang. Cipto (2016)
found that English achievement was positively correlated with thinking styles of
the tenth grade students of SMK Muhammadiyah 5 Purwanto. Last Masarami, Fani
and Ojinejad (2015) also found significant positive relationship between thinking
of Marvdasht. Because there are so many correlations between thinking styles and
more about the correlation between thinking styles and listening comprehension
achievement.
the correlation between students thinking style and their listening comprehension
following questions:
Palembang?
In accordance with the problems above, the objectives of this study are:
1. To find out whether or not there is significant correlation between thinking style
MAN 2 Palembang.
It is expected that the study will give some information and contributions in
contribution to teaching and learning process and for many parties as follows:
8
1. Students
It is hoped that this study gives the students some useful information about
thinking styles. Besides the students can identify their thinking styles or their own
styles for listening which will help them to study well during listening class which
2. Teacher of English
This study can provide useful information for teachers of English about the
listening skill. Teachers can anticipate specific problems why students are not
interested in listening to English by knowing the students thinking styles and how
to solve it. The teacher can also know students thinking styles to help the teacher
3. Other Researchers
It is hoped this study is useful for the other researchers who have interest to
improve students listening skill in this subject and there are possibilities to
correlate them with other variables with greater number of sample since there are
still many unexplained factors that can give contribution for the students.
It is hoped that this study will give the researcher new knowledge about
thinking styles that is very useful for the researchers future job as a teacher. The
researcher can know more about students thinking style and how it influences their
achievement. The researcher also can appreciate the students differences thinking
9
style and utilize the way of their thinking to make them increase their achievement
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter present: (1) Correlational research; (2) The concept of thinking
style; (3) Theconcept of listening comprehension; (4) Previous related study; (5)
Hypothesis.
and Christensen (2012, p. 44) state that in correlational research, the researcher
studies the relationship between one or more quantitative independent variables and
which is a numerical index that provides information about the strength and
direction of the relationship between two variables. This study refers to the
Below is the table showing the degree of correlation between the two
Table 1
Correlation Coefficient
Interval Coefficient Level of Correlation
as the path that an individual prefers on processing the information and dealing with
the given task is a fundamental and deciding working area. They claimed the theory
government. Also, Nikoupour, Alam, and Tajbakhsh, 2012, p. 89) define thinking
managing ideas that drives persons behavior and goals. He defines the thinking
Thinking style does not denote the ability, it shows the way people use their
abilities (Sternberg, 1997). Thinking styles are different from the intelligence;
intelligence refers to the individual potentials and abilities; however, thinking styles
refers to the individual preferences (Seif, 2008). Heidari and Bahrami (2012, p. 723)
define thinking styles correspond to the preferred manner of utilizing ones own
Horrison and Bramson (1983) cited in Vianty, (2007, p. 13) identified five
inquiring styles of thinking. They are the synthesis, idealist, pragmatist, analytical
and environment demand or the ways people learn and think. The various confusing
affected the theoretical foundation of this style construct, as well as its capacity to
style construct and proposed a more general theory of thinking style theory of
12
theory.
There are three functions (legislative, executive, and judicial styles), four forms
(hierarchical, oligarchic, monarchic, and anarchic styles), two levels (global and
local styles), two scopes (internal and external styles), and two learning (liberal and
considered as being one of the components which shape the learning environment.
using the abilities that students have to solve problems, solve the difficulties in
learning at the class, carry out tasks or projects and make a decision.
Sternberg and Zhang (2001) suggest that thinking styles refer to how people
think. Stenberg (1997) propose a theory of thinking styles that term as the theory of
mental self-government. The basic idea of this theory is that people have to organize
the word government metaphorically, contended that just as there are many ways
along 5 dimensions. There are three functions (legislative, executive, and judicial
styles), four forms (hierarchical, oligarchic, monarchic, and anarchic styles), two
13
levels (global and local styles), two scopes (internal and external styles), and two
judicial functions.
The legislative function, as one of the three main function in peoples mental
Gorjian, B., & Pazhakh, A., R (2014, p. 76) defined legislative style means
individuals prefer to obey rules and existing methods. They prefer the problems
which require them to devise new strategies and to create their own laws and they
enjoy giving commands (Zhang, 2004). In line with Fouladi and Shahidi (2016, p.
1730) individual with this thinker Trend to create, invent, design and do the things
in their own way. Budijanto (2013, p. 8) also defined an individual with a legislative
thinking style enjoys being engaged in tasks requiring creativity. It short, this
thinker can be carry out the creativity and making and implicating a new ideas in
forming action.
implementing rules initiated by others. The advocators of this style prefer to use
the ways that already exists to solve problems, and the application and
p. 76) indicate that executive style is the ability of individual to enjoy creating and
14
with an executive thinking style is more concerned with performing tasks with clear
instructions. It can be concluded that executive thinker just focus on the real ways
activities. Ahmadi, et, al (2014, p. 76) argued that judicial style is the ability of
individual to like to judge and evaluate rules, ways, ideas, and procedures. The
advocators of this method care about the assessment of the stages of the work and
the results. They often ask questions such as: Why? What is the reason? What is
assumed? They analyze the main idea in the scientific stance and hate
these four styles concern the way a person organizes information processing.
a monarchic style prefer to focus on one goal at the time and address the next goal
when the first goal is completed (Ahmadi, et, al, 2014, p. 76). Individuals are
characterized by going towards a single goal all the time, they are flexible, and able
to analyze and think logically is low. They prefer works that highlight their
15
with a monarchic thinking style enjoys being engaged in tasks that allow him/her
to concern fully on one goal at a time. It can be claimed that this thinker consistent
et, al (2014, p. 76) explain Individuals with an oligarchic or hierarchic style like to
deal with multiple goals. They describe the former individuals have difficulty in
assigning priorities to the various goals, thus creating conflict and tension. The
owners of this method tend to do many things at one time. They put their goals in
the form of hierarchy depending on their importance and priority. They are realistic,
Wagner, 1991). Budijanto (2013, p. 28) describes that a individual with a hierarchic
importance. All in all, this style will be done activities based on the requirement.
The anarchic form is concerned with taking a random approach to goals and
problems. A person with this style enjoys working on tasks that would allow
flexibility as to what, where, when, and how one corks. Fouladi and Shahidi (2016,
p. 1730) explain anarchic thinker has ability to apply random methods to solve
problems and dislike systems, rules, guidelines and generally any restrictions. Also,
needs and goals and are flexible in their approach (Ahmadi, et, al, 2014, p. 76).
However, they have difficulty setting priorities since they have no firm set of rules.
solve the problems, their performance is better when the tasks and positions that are
assigned to them are disorganized, and they are confused (Sternberg & Wagner,
1991, 2006, Tayeb, 2006). Besides, Heidari, and Bahrami (2012, p. 724) indicate
that anarchic people prefer the tasks that can be accomplished flexibly. In short,
anarchic thinker can be imply as energic style in finding solution of problem and
The oligarchic forms involve pursing multiple goals. A person with this
form also favors to work toward multiple objectives within the same but she/he may
not like to set priorities among the objectives. Fouladi and Shahidi (2016, p. 1730)
explain individual with oligarchic style Prefer to do many things at the same time
but he/she has the problem to prioritize them. Furthermore, these individuals are
characterized by being nervous, confused and they have many conflicting goals, all
of these goals are equally important for them. (Sternberg 2006, Grigorenko &
Sternberg, 1995). it can be claimed that oligarchic thinker has many planning but
as the global or the local level, and is therefore more concerned with either general
reasoning, pondering in the world of ideas (Ahmadi, et, al, 2014, p. 77). They prefer
to deal with broad, abstract and relatively large and. high-level concepts. They
prefer change and innovation, and vague positions. They often ignore the details.
Sharma, and Nettu, (2011, p. 116) argue that global thinkers (or "strategic thinkers")
are more comfortable with new information if they can adapt it into context, they
also tend to be impatient with linear subjects and linear-oriented instruction because
they prefer access to all the information (early on) so they can relate overall goals.
Ahmadi, et, al (2014, p. 77) describe individuals with a local thinking style
are more down to earth and oriented towards the pragmatics of the situation. The
situations. Fouladi and Shahidi (2016, p. 1730) add that the local style as the
realistic ability to tend to be involved with details and objective and specific
examples. It can be concluded that this style can be claimed as realistic person that
external issues. Likewise, individuals with an internal thinking style differ from
others. They are more introverted and less socially sensitive than persons with an
external style.
18
that allow social interaction and collaboration. External persons seek to work
collaboratively (Heidari, & Bahrami, 2012, p. 724), followers of this method tend
to work, interact and collaborate with others within the team, and they have a sense
of social contact with others comfortably and easily. (Sternberg & Wagner, 1991,
Zhang & Sternberg, 2002). Also, Fouladi and Shahidi (2016, p. 1730) argue the
external style person Work with others, rely on outside world and are dependent on
others. It can be implied that external thinker is social able person in working and
& Bahrami, 2012, p. 724). It is supported by Fouladi and Shahidi (2016, p. 1730)
argue this style Tend to work alone, rely on their own world. The followers of this
style prefer to work individually; they are introvert and tend to be lonely. They are
directed toward work or task, and they are characterized by internal focus, and they
prefer the analytical and creative problems. All in all, thus thinkers are
individuals.
19
Those with a liberal thinking style give preference to tasks and projects and
allow them to cover unexplored ground. They seek rather than avoid ambiguous
and uncertain stimuli (Ahmadi, et, al, 2014, p. 77). The followers of this method
tend to go beyond the laws and measures, and the tendency to be ambiguous and
unfamiliar positions. They are seeking through the tasks undertaken by them to by
pass laws that imposed upon them, whether at work or in school in order to bring
Fouladi and Shahidi (2016, p. 1730) explain the conservative person prefer
to do things in before experienced and right ways and follow the customs. Ahmadi,
et, al (2014, p. 77) expressed the contrast, individuals with a conservative thinking
situations that are familiar in life, and they are characterized by diligence and order,
they follow the rules and procedures that exist, and they refuse change and would
prefer the least possible change (Hashim, 2007). It can be concluded that
conservative thinker is the style which likes to try something unpopular for them.
20
Table 2
The Distribution of Dimension of Thinking Styles
(Hashim, 2007)
theory of thinking styles extracted from Sternberg and Wagner (1992). (See
Appendix A)
21
the speaker. Good listener can comprehend what the speaker says very well and
also they can give respond that appropriate with the context. In consequence with
Brown (2001, p. 20), students with good listening comprehension skills are better
able to participate effectively in class due to students learn to speak, read and write
by listening to others.
Listening is the aural medium that gives the way to language acquisition
and enables learners to interact in spoken communication. Jyun (2009) claims that
listening is a critical access to obtaining language input, thus playing a crucial role
listen to what others say well in order to understand talk. Jyun (2009) as also states
because it is assumed that learners would acquire the listening ability naturally as
complex active process that listeners must discriminate between sounds, understand
vocabulary and grammatical structures, interpret stress and intonation, and interpret
all immediately based on the larger socio cultural context of the utterance. Thus,
cognition (Rost, 2002, p. 503). However, listening is not only a skill which helps
develop the aspects of language learning, but also a skill in its own right.
involvement with the person who is talking. It involves a sender, a message and a
meaning from and responding to spoken and/or nonverbal messages. To have good
listening skills, students must be able to comprehend all of the aspects when
bearing, words, phrases, clauses, sentences and connected discourse. The word
process.
more they master speaking, reading and writing skills, the more they master
listening skill also. In dealing with the complex process, three processing models
have been developed to explain how the listening process functions. The three
models occur in a manner of repetition. It means that one processing model change
in to other models and then back to the previous one again. Furthermore, the most
23
widely known as the processing models are the bottom-up model, the top- down
model, and the interactive model (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005, p. 20).
smallest units of the acoustic message; individual sounds or phonemes. Then, these
are combined into word, which, in turn, together make up phrases, clauses and
which listeners must hear words, hold them in their short term memory to link them
to each other, and then interpret what has been heard before accepting a new input.
2. The top- down model emphasizes the use of previous knowledge in processing a
text rather than relying upon the individual sounds and words to make sense of the
input. For this model, subjects levels of comprehension are considerably higher if
the subjects are already familiar with the subject matter and/or text type they are
presented with than if they have not previously encountered the subject matter of
text type.
3. Interactive model involves both bottom- up and top- down processing. It follows
that some sort of model that synthesized the two is required. In this parallel
over hierarchical model, whether they be bottom up or top down, is that it allows
advanced learner, however, who have mastered basic phonology and syntax,
knowledge may be more appropriate, although even advanced learners need to work
comprehension seems possibly very difficult for language students and gets
listening problems. They need to recognize what they hear and produce their own
language to respond to it, but it is not possible to control the input delivered to them.
by the speakers such as different accents, speech rates, and the requirement of
different background, can cause the problem of listening (Flowerdew et.al., 2010,
of language such as speaking and reading. So, listening comprehension has played
with English language, the students need good listening comprehension to help
them in acquisition the English language. If the students has good ability in listening
explore the nature and process of listening comprehension and study the theory and
Based on Gilakjani & Ahmadi (2011, p. 979), listening is the aural medium
that gives the way to language acquisition and enables learners to interact in spoken
meaning from passages, and associate what they hear with existing knowledge.
26
1) Hearing has to do with the response caused by sound waves stimulating the
necessarily paying attention, you must hear to listen, but you need not listen
to hear.
heard and understanding symbols we have seen and heard. We must analyze
the stimuli we have perceived. Symbolic stimuli are not only words, they
can be sounds like applause or even sights, like a blue uniform that have
added it to the minds storage bank, which means that the information will
5) Evaluating, the listener evaluates the message that has been received. It is
at this point when active listeners weigh evidence, sort fact from opinion
1) Active Listening: Active listeners learn better and faster. They make sound
important ideas in complete sentences. They listen for ideas more than
2) Partial Listening: They are those who listen with a rebellious ear. They are
those who are thinking of their next reply rather than listening to what is
taking place.
3) Intermittent Listening: This applies to those who listen with a deaf ear. They
close their ears to unpleasantness. They are those who compulsively nod and
shake their heads in agreement when they are not listening at all. Since
emotion to intrude into the listening process, the more distorted will be our
population included all high school students of Ahvaz Iran, of who 320 students of
English department were selected using the multistage random sampling method.
Thinking styles scale was used to measure the variables and the mean scores of the
Sari (2017) conducted a research with the title the correlation between
thinking styles and writing achievement of the tenth grade students of MAN 1
Palembang. The population of this study was the tenth grade students of MAN 1
Palembang which was taken by using purposive sampling. There were two test
forms to collect the data, they were questionnaire and writing test. The data were
collected by using thinking style inventory (TSI) and writing descriptive text. And
the result founds that there was weak correlation and a significant correlation
between thinking styles and writing achievement of the tenth grade students of
MAN 1 Palembang.
Based on the previous related studies above, it could be concluded that there
were some similarities and differences between two previous studies and the
29
researchers study. The similarity between those previous studies and the
Meanwhile, the differences were on the dependent variable, the population, and
sample. In this study, the researcher involved the Eleventh Grade Students of MAN
MAN 2 Palembang was exist in July 1967. MAN 2 Palembang once named
S.P IAIN as a school to prepare students continue studying in IAIN. Then, in 1978,
this school become Madrasah Aliyah schools based on Keputusan Menteri Agama
letter No 17. Next five years, this school had sertificate based on Dirjen Dikdasmen
thus school got the certificate A from Badan Akreditasi Sekolah Nasional Number
; Ma. 011030.
2.7.2 Location
Vision :
Mission :
teachers, 16 men and 27 women and 5 administration staff and 1 security. There are
2 teachers got master degree and the others got bachelor degree. The details shown
below :
There are 322 students in MAN 2 Palembang divided in 3 levels and 6 class,
shown below :
Number of students
No Class Total
Male Female
1 X 65 60 125
2 XI IPA 20 36 56
3 XI IPS 26 12 38
4 XII IPA 23 40 63
5 XII IPS 30 10 40
Total 168 158 356
2.7.6 Infrastructure
teachers office, mosque, 2 mens toilet, 2 womens toilet, 4 storeroom, sports field
2.7.7 Curriculum
their own situation, condition and potential. There are principles that should be
development, needs and importance of students (2) varied and integrated (3)
responsive to science, technology and art (4) relevant to life needs (5) general and
continued (6) long life learning (7) balanced with national and local needs. In
developing curriculum and syllabus, the school should refer to the guidance which
Nasional Standar Pendidikan) . BNSP develops Content Standard (Standar Isi) and
curriculum.
33
2.7.8.1 Structure
HEAD MASTER
ADMINISTRATION TREASURE
STUDENTS
The hypotheses of this study are proposed in the forms of null and
Palembang.
34
Palembang.
significantly.
significantly.
score is significant or not. In testing hypotheses, there are some criteria. Those are
in the following (Creswell, 2012, p. 188-189; Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun, 2012, p.
1. - If p- value is higher than 0.05 (p> 0.05), the level of significance is 5%, Ha
- If p- value is less than 0.05 (p < 0.05), the level of significance is 5%, Ha
Ha is accepted.
and Ha is rejected.
35
CHAPTER III
METHOD OF RESEARCH
This chapter presents: (1) research design; (2) research variables; (3)
operational definitions; (4) population; (5) sample; (6) data collection; (7) research
instrument analysis; (8) validity; (9) reliability); and (10) data analysis
method. This method was used in this research because the data was described and
was analyzed based on the objectives of the study. In conducting this research,
to find out the correlation between variables and explain then interpret the appeared
result.
And the procedure that, first; the students thinking styles was identified by
using questionnaire. After that, TOEFL Junior test was used to identified students
listening comprehension achievement. The next step that the correlation between
variables was found out through SPSS version 21 based on the results of the
questionnaire and TOEFL Junior test, and the influence predictor of the variable(s).
Last, explanation and interpretation of the results was discussed. The model of the
X Y
Figure Research Design
36
Which:
X: Thinking Styles
Actually, there were two kinds of variables; they were dependent and
variable does to it, how it affects it. And also, the independent variable is presumed
to affect (at least partly cause) or somehow influence at least one other variable. In
variable in a study. In this study the researcher used thinking styles as the
operationally the terms used in this research as follows: first, the word Correlation
means the relationship between two variables or more vary consistently. In this
research, the word correlation refers to the relationship between thinking styles and
from the way of thinking. In this research their thinking styles will be identified
from the Thinking Style Inventory (TSI) by Sternberg, Wagner & Zhang (2007).
one to hear, understand, and give response to what she/he listens to that will be
obtained by the score as a result of listening test. In this research, students listening
3.4.1 Population
(Creswell, 2005, p. 142). According to Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2012, p. 91),
population is the group of interest to the researcher, the group to whom the
researcher would like to generalize the results of the study. Punch and Oancea
(2014, p. 302) state that population is the total target group who would, in the ideal
world, be the subject of the research, and about whome the researcher is trying to
say something.
The population of this study was all the eleventh grade students in MAN 2
Palembang. There were 298 students both science and social classes of the eleventh
research was presented in the table of the population as the following below:
38
Table 3
Population of the Eleventh Grade Students of MAN 2 Palembang
No. Class Students
1. XI MIA 1 36
2. XI MIA 2 35
3. XI MIA 3 35
4. XI MIA 4 32
5. XI MIA 5 32
6. XI IIS 1 33
7. XI IIS 2 32
8. XI IIS 3 32
9. XI IIS 4 31
Total 298
(MAN 2 Palembang in academic year 2017-2018)
3.4.2 Sample
According to Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun (2012, p. 129) sample refers to any
group on which information is obtained. The use of cluster random sampling was
considered for getting the sample of this study. There were times when it is not
other restriction, a researcher might include all of the subjects from the chosen
clusters into the final sample, which is called a cluster random sampling (Fraenkel
the population of the study, meanwhile the sample was taken from taking a half in
2, XI IIS 3, & XI IIS 4. Thus, the sample was 80 and the sample was showed in the
following table:
Table 4
Sample of the Eleventh Grade Students of MAN 2 Palembang
The researcher calculated 50% from each class of the total population of
eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Palembang that 50% of the sample was divided
into nine class of eleventh grade of MAN 2 Palembang. Then, the researcher wrote
the number of students from each class on small pieces of paper. After that, rolled
all the small pieces of paper into a slot of can. The researcher mixed those pieces of
paper which were dropped for each class and as a result, the numbers that belong to
that students become a sample, the researcher got the selected students as the
sample.
40
In this study, there were two kinds of instruments for collecting the data:
questionnaire for thinking styles and the TOEFL Junior test for knowing students
listening score.
The data about students thinking styles was collected by Thinking Style
Inventory (TSI) from Sternberg, Wagner & Zhang (2007). Items on the likert scales
1 : Strongly disagree
2 : Disagree
3 : Undecided
4 : Agree
5 : Strongly agree
There were 65 items in the questionnaire consisting of 13 types of thinking
style. Each type of thinking style has 5 questions. Questions was answered and
their listening comprehension achievement. The test was taken from TOEFL Junior
administration the test was 40 minutes. TOEFL Junior test scores were determined
by the number of questions the students have answered correctly. There was no
they get from listening test then will be classified into five levels. The levels of
Table 5
The Classification of Students Scores in Listening Comprehension
2 70 79 B Good
3 60 69 C Average
4 50 59 D Poor
5 0 49 E Very Poor
Before the test and questionnaire are administered, validity and reliability
reliability are the two most essential psychometric properties to consider in using a
interpretations made from the test scores, while reliability refers to the consistency
validity of the test, content validity is used. The writer checks curriculum and
42
syllabus to analyze content validity. In this study, the construct validity of the
their thinking styles and listening test for testing their listening comprehension
involving three raters to estimate and validate the test questions and to check
whether the test is appropriate or not. In addition, as the writer gets the mean score
According to Fraenkel et. al (2012, p. 148), the construct validity refers to the
In this study, the construct validity of the research instruments involved test
and questionnaire. The questionnaire to test their thinking styles and listening test
lecturers at UIN Raden Fatah Palembang are asked to estimate the validity of both
tests.
question, e.g. whether the questionnaire measures what it represents the content and
According to TOEFL Junior handbook (2015 p. 2), the TOEFL Junior Standard test
ETS university-level TOEFL test continues to set the standard for the measurement
43
measures the degree to which students in middle school and lower levels of high
school have attained proficiency in the academic and social English-language skills
language skills, structures, etc., with which it is meant to be concerned. In this study,
content validity was very important since it was an accurate measure of what it was
supposed to measure. Content validity used to see whether the tests were
The researcher found some related studies that have validated the same
second Thani, Thani, & Semmar (2014), third Bernardo, Zhang, & Callueng (2002),
fourth Ahmadi, Gorjian, & Pazhakh (2016), fifth Fatemi & Heidari (2016), sixth
Mahmood, Hossein, & Shahrooz (2013), seventh Sari (2017), and the last Agesti
(2017). So, based on all the result of the data of researcher above it might conclude
that the questionnaire was valid. Because so many researchers that have been used
Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI) questionnaire, it means that this questionnaire was
Bahasa Indonesia by the researcher since the sample was non-English major
students. To ensure that the questionnaire has a good content, the researcher was
ask feedback from three English lecturers to check the questionnaire translation.
44
scores, the coefficient should be at least 0.70, preferably higher. Meanwhile, Hinton
(2004) suggested four cut-off points for reliability, including excellent (0.90 and
reliability (0.50 and below). Therefore, the questionnaire will be reliable if the
coefficient is 0.50 or higher. In this research, Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI) has
follows: Internal (.76), External (.64), Conservative (.83), Liberal (.86), Global
(.68), Local (.63), Legislative (.77), Executive (.84), Judicial (.71), Monarchic (.51),
Hierarchic (.84), Oligarchic (.66), and Anarchic (.54). in this study, Elisabeth
conservative (.83), Liberal (.85), Global (.51), Local (.74), Legislative (.77),
Executive (.64), Judicial (.84), Monarchic (.57), Hierarchic (.84), Oligarchic (.62),
alphas ranged from 0.64 (the executive and local styles) to 0.87 (the liberal style),
on different forms of the test. It can vary from .00 (indicating no agreement at all)
TOEFL Junior standard scores, in the group of all test takers, are estimated to be as
follows:
45
In analyzing the data, there were two kinds of data under analysis. They
were the data of students thinking styles questionnaire and students listening
comprehension achievement test. All the data obtained from the questionnaire and
3.7.1.1 Questionnaire
Firstly, the data from questionnaire was analyzed to determine the students
thinking styles by observing the mostly checked item in the column. The scoring
system used likert scales. Those are: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), moderate
(3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). The result was classified to know the students
thinking styles by analyzing the dominant score of thinking style types. The
In order to find out the students thinking styles, the thinking style inventory
was administered. The students rated themselves on a 5-point likert- type scale, with
1 indicating that the statement did not describe them at all and 5 denoting that the
statement characterized them extremely well. In analyzing the data, this study used
correlation analysis method. This study used person product moment correlation
The distributions of data frequency were obtained from the scores of thinking
style questionnaire. The score was described by presenting a number of the students
46
who got a certain score and its interval between points on the category. Then, the
score, mean, standard deviation, and standard error of mean were obtained.
scoring system from general formula used by teachers in the school, especially in
MAN 2 Palembang.
In this part, the score of the students was described by presenting a number
of the students who got a certain score and its percentage. The distributions of data
frequency were obtained from the scores of TOEFL Junior test. Then, the
The students listening test score was analyzed by observing the total correct
score of the test. The total correct score was divided the total questions times 100.
The range of the score is 0 until 100 from 42 question items in multiple choice form.
Then, SPSS statistics program was used to get the result of analysis number of
47
sample, the lowest score, the highest score, mean, standard deviation, and standard
error of mean.
Normality test is used to see if the distribution of all data are normal; the
data from questionnaire and test. The data can be classfied into normal when the p-
output is higher than 0.05 level. In analyzing the normality test, 1-Sample
Linearity test is used to see if the data from tests are linear. The data can be
classified into linear when the p-output is higher than 0.05 level. To find out the
linearity from both questionnaire and test, Oneway ANOVA in Statistical Package
In testing the hypotheses, the researcher used and described some techniques,
as follows :
score obtained from reflective thinking questionnaire and listening test. Then, it was
moment (r table). The correlation coefficient will be found if p-value is higher than
0.05.
indicated the percentage of the best predictor variables that contributed to the score
criteria. The significant influence was found if Rsquare (R2) is equal to 0.49.
49
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS
This chapter presents: (1) research finding; and (2) the interpretations.
There are three kinds of research findings in this study: (1) the result of
instrument analysis, (2) the result of prerequisite analysis and (3) the result of
hypothesis testing.
The total numbers of active students in the eleventh grade students of MAN
2 Palembang were 298 students. 151 students participated in this study, and the
others were not included as sample of this study. The 65 items of Thinking Styles
Inventory (TSI) were used to investigate the participants thinking styles. The TSI
questionnaire used likert scale 1-5. In answering the statement in the questionnaire,
the students chose number 1-5. (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) undecided,
(4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. The students chose which number that was
appropriate for them. First, the total answer of each types of the questionnaire was
calculated. The result from each types was then summed up. The highest score is
325 and the lowest score is 65. Second, to know the students average of thinking
styles, it was obtained by calculating the total answer in each type and dividing the
total statement in each type. After that the score from each type of TSI was revealed.
The average for each of the TSI indicated which type the students tend to use most
frequently. Third, to know the overall of the students TSI, all the SUMS of different
50
types of TSI were added. Overall, the average of the students described the students
frequency in using thinking styles. The highest frequency level is 5.0 and the lowest
is 1.0.
It was revealed that from the questionnaire, the thirteen types of thinking
styles were all perceived by the students with different numbers. The details are as
follows:
Table 6
The Distribution of Students Thinking Styles Inventory
No. Thinking Styles Frequency Percentage
1. Legislative 22 15%
2. Executive 36 24%
3. Judicial 9 6%
4. Global 19 13%
5. Local 13 9%
6. Liberal 8 5%
7 Conservative 8 5%
8 Hierarchical 4 3%
9 Monarchical 9 6%
10 Oligarchic 13 9%
11 Anarchic 14 9%
12 Internal 9 6%
13 External 43 28%
legislative style was 22 students and the percentage was 15%; the frequency of
executive style 36 students and the percentage was 24%; the frequency of judicial
style was 9 students and the percentage was 6%; the frequency of global style was
19 students and the percentage was 13%; the frequency of local style was 13
students and the percentage was 9%; the frequency of liberal style was 8 students
and the percentage was 5%; the frequency of conservative style was 8 students and
the percentage was 5%; the frequency of hierarchical style was 4 students and the
percentage was 3%; the frequency of monarchical style was 9 students and the
percentage was 6%; the frequency of oligarchic style was 13 students and the
percentage 9%; the frequency of anarchic style was 14 students and the percentage
was 9%; the frequency of internal style was 9 students and 6%. And the last for
external style, the frequency was 43 students and the percentage was 28%.
From explanation above, the researcher found that the highest frequency and
percentage was external style, and for the lowest frequency and percentage was
hierarchical style. From the result of distribution of students thinking style revealed
Table 7
Descriptive Analysis of Thinking Styles Inventory
Descriptive Statistics
for the participants is shown below. The maximum score was 90, and the lowest
score was 61. The mean of the listening comprehension achievement scores for the
participants was 72.48 and the standard deviation was 6,121. This mean score
good.
53
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics of Listening Comprehension Achievement
Descriptive Statistics
Listening comprehension
151 60 90 72.48 6.121
achievement
students category of very good was 25 students and the percentage was 16,5%. The
students category of good was 74 students and the percentage was 49,0%. And the
students category of average was 52 students and the percentage was 34,4%.
From explanation above, the researcher found that the highest category and
percentage was good score, and for the lowest category and percentage was very
achievement found that the students have good level in listening comprehension
achievement.
Normality test and linearity test were conducted prior to data analysis
correlation and regression were used in this research, it was fundamental to see if
the distribution of data were normal for each variable and linear between variables.
The data are interpreted normal if p-output is higher than 0.05. If p-output
is lower than 0.05, it means the data are not normal. Kolmogorov-smirnov was used
54
to see the normality. The results of normality test is shown in table below indicated
that the data from each variable were all normal and appropriate for data analysis.
From the table of normality, it was found that the significant of normality
test from students reflective thinkingwas .198. From the scores, it could be stated
that the obtained data were categorized normal since it is higher than .05. The result
Table 9
Normality Test for Questionnaire
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Thinking styles
N 151
Positive .069
Negative -.088
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1.075
From the table of normality test, it was found that the significant of
normality test from students listening achievement was .557. From the scores, it
55
could be stated that the obtained data were categorized normal since it is higher The
Table 10
Normality Test for Listening Comprehension Achievement
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Listening
Comprehension
Achievement
N 98
Positive .074
Negative -.069
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .733
than .05, the two variables are linear. Based on the result, the statistics was found
that the (F) 0.905 was lower than F-table (2.50), and the significance level was
(Sig.) 0.544. The distribution showed that the significance level was higher than
0.05. It means that the variables were linear. The linearity found whenever the p-
output was higher than 0.05, and F-value was lower than F-table. From the result
of the significance level, it can be assumed that the data from thinking styles
56
Table 11
Linearity Test
ANOVA Table
This section answered the first research problem. By analyzing the result of
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, the result indicated that there was
achievement. The correlation coefficient or the r-obtained (-.084) was lower than
r-table (0.158). Then the level of probability (p) significance (sig.2-tailed) was 443.
It means that p (.443) was higher than .05. Thus, there was no significant correlation
Table 12
Correlation between Thinking Styles and Listening Comprehension
Correlations
N 151 151
N 151 151
Listening Comprehension
Furthermore, since the finding of this study found that there was no significant
also means that there was no significant influence of reflective thinking and
Table 13
Influence between Thinking Styles and Listening Comprehension
Measures of Association
In order to strengthen the value of this study the interpretations were made
based on the result of data analysis. First of all, the aims of this study were to find
58
out: (1) the correlation between thinking styles and listening comprehension
achievement, and (2) the influence of thinking styles and listening comprehension
And there was one type that had a correlation over their listening comprehension
achievement (Internal r -.084*). It means that thinking styles had weak relation
achievement, but it had not significant correlation. Nonetheless, the other types of
correlation means that the higher the possession of each type of thinking styles, the
The result of thinking style inventory found that the highest frequency and
percentage of students thinking style was external, that is, 43 and its percentage was
28%. And the lowest frequency and percentage of students thinking style was
hierarchical style, the frequency of students hierarchical style was 4 students and
the percentage was 3%. It means that 3% of the students like solving problem which
require them to devise new strategies and follow the directions and they enjoy
giving commands (Zhang, 2004). And 1,68% students prefer to work many things
at once and they were setting a priority (Fouladi and Shahidi, 2016, p. 1730).
- 79), the frequency was 74 students, and the percentage was 49,0%.
indicated that there was no significant correlation between students thinking style
type was lower than r-table 0.1587. Then, each sig. 2-tailed was higher than .05. It
means that there was no significant correlation between students thinking styles
And there was one types that had a correlation over their listening
internal types was moderate than r-table 0.1587. Then, each sig. 2-tailed moderate
than .05. It means that there was a weak correlation between students thinking
further analysis using the stepwise procedure for the multiple regression analysis
not revealed that thinking styles given much contribution to students listening
comprehension achievement.
The implications of this study addresses the issues about teaching and
mental self-government was to provide a useful tool for teachers to enhance the
learning Sternberg argued that it was important to allow for thinking styles.
Therefore, the results of this study imply that it is imperative for teachers to design
a learning context that allows students to use a variety of thinking styles, students
regardless their preferred ways of thinking, could benefit from learning context. It
example, a teacher may ask students with different dominant thinking styles to work
learn from one another about more effective ways of dealing with problems
(Saracho & Spodek, 1981, as cited in Zhang, 2001). In the meantime, cooperative
learning also provides opportunities for students to learn how to tolerate one
learning task. As the result, students will learn how to work with and deal with their
peers.
61
comprehension achievement has influence for students. Research has indicated that
and materials structured to suit students thinking style) is significantly superior that
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGESSTIONS
This chapter presents; (1) conclusion; and (2) suggestions based on findings
of the research.
5.1 Conclusion
concluded that. First, there was no significant correlation between two categories
(r .051), Oligarchic (r .112), Anarchic (r .044), and External (r -.034) ver their
lower than r-table 0.1587. Then, each sig. 2-tailed was higher than .05. It means
that there was no significant correlation between students thinking styles and their
And there was one types that had a correlation over their listening
than .05. It means that there was a weak correlation between students thinking
Meaning that students thinking styles had no correlation with their listening
foreign language teacher, students, and next researcher. The findings showed that
the null hypothesis (H0) was accepted and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was
rejected.
63
Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the students thinking styles
does not give dominant effect through listening comprehension achievement. In this
case, the other factors would give more dominant effect through it. It can be
assumed that the higher this thinking styles possessed by the students, the better the
result of listening comprehension achievement, and it means that the students who
have good understanding and use their thinking styles effectively will have good
and using their thinking styles ineffectively will have bad achievement in listening
comprehension.
5.2 Suggestions
Based upon the result of this research, the researcher would like to offer
need to focus on students thinking style because thinking style has important role
in listening comprehension achievement and. Due to this fact, since thinking styles
contributed to the eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Palembang for their listening
comprehension achievement.
Second, the researcher believed that besides thinking styles, there were still
when they did the test, the good time for answering the test that may have influenced
the results of this study due to strengthens of the researcher in conducting it. The
64
result of this study stated the importance of thinking styles as one factor that has no
influence in improving students achievements. For the students, this study can help
students to know about the importance of thinking styles, kinds of thinking styles
The third, for future researchers who have interest on this subject, students
thinking styles is a broad area, so there is probabilities to correlate them with other
variables since there are still many unexplained factors that can give contribution
for the students listening comprehension achievement. For further studies, the
writer also gives some suggestions as the followings: first, the next study should do
the research on a wider scope of subjects and include more subjects, for example in
more than one school having more than 30 students in a class. So, the next
researcher can make general conclusion since this study only included eleventh
grade students of one Senior High School level. Second, the data of the next study
should be more objective. It does not only include questionnaire but also an
observation. The third, researcher should consider experimental study to see the
effect of giving treatments for students. The last, further study should take the
students final test scores or make the test by the researcher. More importantly,
realizing the advantages of thinking styles theory and approaches teacher should
References
Ahmadi, S., Gorjian, B., and Pazhakh, A. R. (2016). The effect of thinking styles
on EFL learners' language learning strategies in reading comprehension.
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics
World. 6(4).
Ahour, T., &Maleki, S. E. (2014). The effect of metadiscourse instruction on
Iranian EFL learners speaking ability. English Language Teaching, 7(10),
69-75.
Andreouli, E. (2010). Identity, positioning and self-other relations. Papers on
Social Representations, 19(14), 14.1-14.13.
Bahrani, T. (2013). Theory and practice in English language teaching and learning.
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics
World, 3(3), 1-274.
Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003). Essential speaking skills: A handbook for English
language teachers. London, England: Continuum.
Barrow, M. (2010). Helping hands. Children and Libraries, 8(2), 41-43.
Boonkit, k. (2010). Enhancing the development of speaking skill for non-native
speakers of English. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2),
1305-1309, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.191.
Brown, H. Douglas. (2003). Language assessment: Principles and
classroompractices. White Plains, New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language sssessment: Principles and Classroom practices.
London, England: Longman, Inc
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principle: An interactive approach for language
pedagogy (2nd Ed.). London, England: Longman, Inc.
Budijanto, R., R. (2013). Thinkingstyles, teamwork quality and
performance(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/cbf1815d-92bb-
46a8.../full_text.pdf.
Campfield, D. C. (2008). Cyber bullying and victimization: psychosocial
characteristics of bullies, victims, and bully/victims (Doctoral
Dissertation). The University of Montona, Missoula, USA.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research method in education (6th
Ed.). Routlage, NY: Madison avenue, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Esmer, E., &Altum, S. (2016). Teacher candidates thinking style: An investigation
of various variables. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(5), 160-
172.
66