THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE

LEARNING STRATEGIES AND STUDENTS’ THINKING

STYLES
(A Study of the Ninth Semester of English Education Department of IAIN

Salatiga in Academic Year 2018/2019)

A GRADUATING PAPER
Submitted to the Board of Examiners as a partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd)
English Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty
State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga

By:
ISNAINI NAILIL FARIH
113 14 074

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
STATE INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES (IAIN)
SALATIGA
2018

i
ii
iii
iv
 MOTTO

“All growth depends upon activity. There is no development physically or

intellectually without effort, and effort means work”

Calvin Coolidge

v
 DEDICATION

I hereby dedicate this graduating paper for:

1. My God the Most Merciful

2. My beloved parents. Thank you for everything you give to me. Thanks for

your patience in every second. May Allah always and loves you both

whenever and wherever you are.

3. My beloved family ( Nasichun Family)

4. My best friend.

5. My closest friends ( JarePiknik)

6. My friends in PPNQ Nurul Qur‟aniy

7. All of my friends inEnglish and Education Department of Teacher

Training and Education Faculty at State Institute for Islamic Studies

(IAIN) Salatiga 2014.

8. All of my friends in this world.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful, The

Lord of Universe. Because of Him, the writer could finish this graduating paper

entitled THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE LEARNING

STRATEGIES AND STUDENTS THINKING STYLES as one of the

requirement for the Degree of Educational Studies (S.Pd.) at English Education

Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty at State Institute for

Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga in 2018.

Secondly, peace and salutation always be given to our Prophet

Muhammad SAW who has guided us from the darkness into the lightness.

However, this paper would not be finished without those supports,

advices, guidance, helps and encouragement from individual and institution, and I

somehow realize that an appropriate moment for me to express gratitude for:

1. Dr. RahmatHariyadi, M.Pd., as the rector of State Institute for Islamic Studies

(IAIN) Salatiga.

2. Suwardi, M.Pd., as the Dean of Teacher Training and Education of IAIN

Salatiga.

3. Noor Malihah, Ph.D., as the Head of English Education Department, and also

as the writer‟s counselor who has always educated, supported, directed, and

given the writer countless advices, suggestions, and recommendations for this

vii
graduating paper from the beginning until the end. I am really proud to be

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ...........................................................................................................i

DECLARATION ....................................................................................................ii

AUTENTIVE COUNSELOR‟S NOTES...............................................................iii

CERTIFICATION PAGE.......................................................................................iv

MOTTO ...................................................................................................................v

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT .......................................................................................vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................ix

LIST OF TABLE………………………………………………………………...xii

LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………………………...xiv

ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................xv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study….........................................................................1

B. Question of The Research............................................................................5

C. Objectives of theResearch............................................................................5

ix
 D. Limitation of the Research………………………………….........................5

E. Significances of the Research.........................................................................6

F. Definition of The Key Terms..........................................................................7

G. Organization of the Graduating Paper.............................................................8

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Previous Research .......................................................................................10

B. Theoretical Framework ...............................................................................12

1. Language Learning Strategies………………...……………………….12

a. Direct Strategies……………………………………………….15

b. Indirect Strategies……………………………………………..17

2. Students‟ Thinking Styles……………………………...……………...19

C. Hypothesis of the Research...........................................................................26

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design...........................................................................................28

B. Research Settings and Participant.................................................................29

1. Location of the Research……………………………............................29

2. Time of the Research………………………………………………….30

x
 3. Population and Sample………………………………...........................30

C. Variables of The Research…........................................................................31

1. Independent Variables…………………………………………………32

2. Dependent Variables……………………………......………………....32

D. Research Instrument……...............................................................................32

1. Questionnaire…………………………………….……………………32

E. Test of The Research Instrument....................................................................34

1. Validity…………………………………………………………...……34

2. Reliability……………………………………………………………...36

F. Technique of The Data Analysis…………………….........………………...38

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION

A. Data Description…….................................................................................40

1. Language Learning Strategies and Students‟ Thinking Styles

Scores...................................................................................................40

a. The Profile of Language Learning Strategies…………................45

b. The Profile of Students‟ Thinking Styles……………………….46

B. Data Analysis…….....................................................................................47

1. Correlation Result……………………………………………………47

2. Regression Result…………………………………………………….48

xi
 3. Hypothesis Testing………………………………………….……..…49

C. Discussion……………..............................................................................51

CHAPTER V CLOSURE

A. Conclusion.................................................................................................53

B. Suggestion .................................................................................................53

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

xii
 LIST OF TABLE

Table 3.1 The Validation Result of Questionnaire Language Learning

Strategies.............................................................................................................. 33

Table 3.2 The ValidationResult of Questionnaire Students Thinking Styles

.............................................................................................................................. 34

Table 3.3 The Reliability of Questionnaire Language Learning

Strategies…………………………………………………..…………………..…36

Table 3.4 The Reliability of Questionnaire Students Thinking

Styles.................................................................................................................... 36

Table 3.5 The Coefficient Correlation................................................................. 38

Table 4.1The Scores of Language Learning Strategies.........................................40

Table 4.2The Scores of Students Thinking Styles.................................................42

Table 4.3 The Profile of Language Learning Strategies

………….............................................................................................................. 45

Table 4.4The Profile of Students Thinking Styles

….......................................................................................................................... 46

Table 4.5The Coefficient Correlation between Language Learning Strategies and

Students Thinking Styles...................................................................................... 46

Table 4.6The effect of Language Learning Strategies toward Students thinking

Styles…………………………………………………………………………......48

xiii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Research Questionnaire

Appendix 2 Placement of the Questionnaire

Appendix 3 The Score of Language Learning Strategies

Appendix 4 The Score of Students Thinking Styles

Appendix 5 The Validation Values of Language Learning Strategies

Appendix 6 The Validation Value of Students Thinking Styles

Appendix 7 SKK

Appendix 8 Lembar Konsultasi Skripsi

Appendix 9 Curriculum Vitae

xiv
 ABSTRACT

Farih, Isnaini Nailil. 2018.The Correlation Between Language Learning

Strategies and Students Thinking Styles, Graduating Paper, Theacher
Training and Education Faculty. English Education Department. State
Institue for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga. Counselor: Noor Malihah, S.
Pd., Ph.D.

Key Words :Correlation, Language Learning Strategies, Students Thinking

Styles.
The writer conducted the research about the correlation between language
learning strategies and students‟ thinking styles in IAIN Salatiga. The writer took
47 students as the participant in this research. This research design was
correlational method. The data in this research was taken using questionnaire.
There are 2 kinds of questionnaire in this research. The first questionnaire is
about language learning strategies (X) and it consist 12 questions. The second
questionnaire is about students thinking styles (Y) it consisted 26 questions. The
total amount of question in this research is 38 questions. The writer has
demonstrated two kinds of the questionnaire.
The research data were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 program. This program
was used to find out whether or not there is correlation between language learning
strategies and students‟ thinking styles, to see whether or not the significance
between the two variables and to find out the effect of language learning
strategies (X) towards students thinking styles (Y). The result of this research are:
correlation coefficient 0.606 which means that the correlation between language
learning strategies and students thinking styles is 60.6%. The determination
coefficient is 0.368 which means that the effect of language learning strategies
towards students thinking styles 36.8%. The significance of this research is
positive significance correlation. It can be proved by the correlation coefficient (r
count) and significance value (ρ) got from the calculation (r count = 0.606, ρ =
0.000). Because the r count is positive and more than r table (0.606 > 0.294) and ρ
= 0.000 < 0.05. Based on the result, it can be concluded that there was positive
correlation between language learning strategies and students thinking styles.

xv
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter the researcher presents background of the research,

questions of the research, objectives of the research, significances of the research,

definition of the key terms and the organization of the graduating paper.

A. Background of the study

English is the world prime language which is used in diplomacy,

education, business, economy, politic, social and culture. Many

information used English right now. English in Indonesia is a foreign

language that almost every people learn about that to grow up like the

other country. Many schools in Indonesia make English as their

compulsion lesson in junior and senior high school. Moreover, many

Islamic boarding schools like Pondok Modern Gontor Darussalam, MAPK

MAN 1 Surakarta they apply English Language as their daily and all of the

students have to practise that. From that habit, students that actually do not

like English they try to understand that and they apply English language as

their daily language.

English is an international language which is used by people

almost in the whole world. Richards and Rodgers (2001: 3) state that today

English is the most widely studied foreign language in the world.

However, in Indonesia, English is just known as the first foreign language

which has very limited use including the place, time, and environment.

1
There are many ways and factors to improve English language skill and

depends in the students‟. Every students‟ have their own way to think, to

accept what they get, to process what they receive. The environment of

students‟ also make impact for students to get an information.

The successful learning process is not only by the good learning

strategies and methods also depends on students‟ thinking styles. The

correct students thinking styles make an impact for learning process. There

are good and bad factors that influenced Students learning in the class.

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.

From the problems above the researcher knows that the factors that

influenced the learning process depends on how is the students thinking

styles. Dweck (2006) say that there are 2 kinds of approach in students

thinking styles; they are fixed mindset and growth mindset. In a fixed

mindset, students always feels anxious and nervous to setbacks or

criticisms. Students with growth mindset feels eager to learn to boost her

performance and enjoy exploring, experimenting and stretching themself.

Students have a minds which is branched, and it called as their brain is

started to grow up but still not maximal. Usually students learn more to get

new information, science and from this process students can develop their

brain again. Students who can focus on the learning process usually they

can get much information from the learner.

2
 According to Williams (2011) technology, for example, the use of

mobile phone can distract the students learns. This opinion is also

supported by Fried (2006) who report that computer as one form of

technologies, give negative effects in the learning process. Therefore the

researcher is eager to investigate about whether or not technology cause

negative effect in the process of learning.

Even English language is the world wide prime language in this

world do not mean that there are no people who do not like English. Not

all of the students of English Education Departmen in IAIN Salatiga is

truely like English. Some students take English Education Departmen just

like to fill empty time, to do what their parents want or it can be a form

from a release when she took in another university but she get ignored.

Students with that type usually when the class is begin they are busy with

what they want to do or come late to the class. Often they are playing her

smartphone in the class rather than listening to her lecturer. In this

problems it can be solved when the student interest in the strategy of

learning and from that strategy the students can change her mindset.

Furthermore, Drozdenko, Tesch, Coelho (2011) state that there are two

factors that can disturb students‟ focus in the class, that is internal and

external factors. Internal factor is coming from her own self like talking to

others, sending a message, playing a handphone, listening to music in her

MP3. External factor is a kind of disturb that are made from the other, it

3
can be from her friend, teacher is that hard to understand or it can be from

outside of the class.

The way that students act can explain how they think. Every

student have differences about what they need in language learning

process and their own way to think. From this problem the researchers see

they have their own strategy to accept an information. There are some

strategies in language learning strategy that is Cognitive Learning

Strategies, Metacognitive Learning Strategies, Communication Strategies

and Social Strategies. Naiman (1978:1) state that all kind of language

learning can grow well if we have enough knowledge about learners and

process of learning and teaching. Concerning with those problems, lecturer

as the main component of education is challenged to be as creative as

possible to provide opportunities for students to expose and to reinforce

student skills. To encourage students to practice their language, the

researcher tries to help teacher to solve the problems of students.

In this research the researcher is aimed to find out the significant

relationship between language learning strategies and students thinking

styles by sharing questionnaire to the university students of IAIN Salatiga

as participants of this research especially for language education

department. For this reason, the researcher predicts that sharing

questionnaire might be useful to find out the result. Based on the

arguments that had been discussed, the researcher thinks that it is

necessary to observe and focus on language learning strategies and

4
 students thinking styles. That is why the researcher chooses the title “The

Correlation Between Language Learning Strategy and Students

Thinking Styles”

B. Question of The Research

Based on the phenomenon of study, in order to learn more obvious

and more directed the researcher formulates the problems of the study as

follows:

1. How is the Profile of Language Learning Strategies?

2. How is the Profile of Students Thinking Styles?

3. Is there any significant correlation between language learning strategy

and students thinking styles?

C. Objectives of The Research

Responding with the statement of the problems, the objectives of

the research are stated as follows:

1. To find out the Profile of Language Learning Strategies.

2. To find out the Profile of Students‟ Thinking Styles.

3. The significant correlation between language learning strategy and

student‟s thinking styles

D. Limitation of the Research

The writer limits the research to the ninth semester of English

Education Departmen of IAIN Salatiga in Academic Year 2018/2019. This

research conducted to find out whether or not there is correlation between

language learning strategies and Students‟ Thinking Styles.

5
E. Significant of the Research

Research is something that important to be done in science

development, especially for the English language learning. Hopefully this

result of the research give some benefits for the readers. It can be used in

order to develop their information. The researcher deliver the significant of

the research as theoretically and practically:

1. Theoretically

By this research, the researcher hopes that it give more information

to the readers about the correlation between language learning strategy

and students thinking styles.

2. Practically

a. For the writer

The result of this research is hopefully can improve the

motivation of the writer to do another research another time.

b. For the learner

1. The result of this study can increase the student

intelligences about the language learning strategies and

students thinking styles.

2. The results of this study can be useful in the English

learning especially in improving Language skill.

c. For The Future Research

6
 This study can helps the readers or other researchers to do

the same related research. The result of this research also can

be the reference for other research.

d. For The Institution

The result of this research hopefully can support the

institution to improve and increase the quality of the students

especially in English language learning

F. Definitions of the Key Terms

In this section, the researcher briefly delivers the definition of key

terms to make understandable meaning. The researcher delivers to

avoiding some incorrect interpretation of this research title, the writer

would like to clarify and explain the terms used.

1. Language Learning Strategies

According to Weden (1987), language learning strategies can be

defined from the aspect of language learning behaviors such us

learning and regulating the meaning of the second or foreign language,

cognitive theory such us learners strategic knowledge of language

learning and the effective view such us learners motivation, attitude,

etc. It‟s argued that the three point of views can improve language

learning. Language learning strategies as mean to facilitate the

acquisition of language and the use of information they receive, store

and recall to language learners uses.

2. Students’ Thinking styles

7
 According to Sternberg (1997: 8) a thinking style is not an

aptitude, but rather the way one chooses to use one's aptitudes. The

way how they think can improve their knowledge. Students‟ thinking

styles is a students‟ way to giving a value and conclusion about

something with their own way. Every students‟ have their own way to

think about something. What make the differences with the way they

think is how much they understand and how fast they receive an

information. The way students‟ think also influenced by emotion,

education, experience. From this all can measure how adult that

students.

G. Organization of the Graduating Paper

In order to make a systematic research, the researcher organizes this

research into five chapters, they are as follows:

1. Chapter I: Introduction

The first chapter is the researcher writes the Introduction

that contains background of study, statement of the problems,

objectives of study, the benefits of the study, limitation of the

study, definitions of key term and outline of the graduating paper.

2. Chapter II :Theoretical Framework

The second chapter is literature review is discussed which

contain of the explanation based on the theory of definition and

type learning and explains about the correlation between language

learning strategy and students thinking styles.

8
3. Chapter III : Research Methodology

The third chapter contain of research method and data

presentation. Concerning to the research method is the general

discution about the profile IAIN Salatiga, Setting of the research,

Subject of the research, type of the research, procedure of the

research, technique of the date and technique of analyzing data.

4. Chapter IV : Research Findings and Data Analysis

The fourth chapter consists of implementation of the study.

Such as is data analysis cullected data, It consists of each cycle

and its analysis. Of The correlation between language learning

strategies and students‟ thinking style.

5. Chapter V: Closure

The fifth chapter is Closure which carries the explanation

about the conclusion and the suggestion from the research. And the

last part is references and appendices.

9
 CHAPTER II

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORKS

In this chapter consists of underlying theories and previous research. The

researchers present some theoretical frameworks that is used in this research in

which aimed to get relevant knowledge underlined the research. Additionally, the

researcher also delivers several previous related researchers which is aimed to

give more information about this research.

A. Previous Research

In this research the researchers takes several reviews of related

literature from previous research as comparison. The first research was

written by Mahmood (2013), in his research he used questionnaire and a self

report test to analyze the correlation. In his research the objectives of his

study is to find out positive relationship between language learning

strategies employed by Iranian (EFL) university students and their thinking

styles, to find out positive relationship between language learning strategies

employed by Iranian (EFL) university students and their gender and to find

out a positive relationship between thinking styles employed by Iranian

(EFL) university students and their gender. The results obtained from the

present study are more revealing that there is a significant difference

between males and females in terms of strategy choice. It was found that the

differences between the strategy use of male and female are meaningful for

memory, metacognitive, compensation, cognitive. In other words, males

10
used more memory, cognitive, compensation and metacognitive strategies

compared with females, but there was no significant difference between

males and females with regard to the affective and social strategy use.

The different between Mahmood, Hashemnezhad and Javidi (2013)

and this research is, in this research the participants is from several

university students of IAIN Salatiga especially in language department.

While in Mahmood, Hashemnezhad and Javidi (2013) is Iranian EFL

learners. In Mahmood, Hashemnezhad and Javidi (2013) research the

objectives of the study is to find out positive relationship between language

learning strategies employed by Iranian (EFL) university students and their

thinking styles, to find out positive relationship between language learning

strategies employed by Iranian (EFL) university students and their gender

and to find out a positive relationship between thinking styles employed by

Iranian (EFL) university students and their gender. And in this research is to

know what is the relationship between language learning strategies and

student‟s thinking styles, to know the effect of learning strategy towards

student‟s thinking styles and the significant correlation between language

learning strategy and student‟s thinking styles.

The second research was written by Ahmadi, Gorjian and Pazkhah

(2014). In his research he focused on the extent of their association with

reading comprehension among university students. 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

11
 predict their preference of language learning strategies. There was also a

positive and meaningful correlation between legislative and judicial thinking

styles and the total scores of language learning strategies and reading

comprehension performance.

B. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical faremwork involve the discussion of Language

learning strategy and students thinking styles.

1. Language Learning Strategies

Learner should learn their own strategies to learn English well.

Research on language learning strategies has increased significantly

since the 1970 (Alhasony, 2017). In fact, language learners develop their

own ways and use various activities to learn consciuosly and

unconsciously (Alfian, 2016) Language learning strategies have received

a considerable amount of significance since early 1970s for the crucial

role they are playing in language learning. Many researcher defined

language learning strategies differently.

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 has

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).

12
 Ghani (2003: 121) had a extensive study on the area of language

learning strategies, she defined these strategies as: specific actions,

behaviours, steps, or techniques that students (often intentionally) use to

improve their progress in developing second language skills. According

to her, these strategies can facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval,

or use of the new language

An early definition given by Rigeney (1978: 20) who defines

language learning strategies as the often-conscious steps or behaviors

used by language learners to enhance the acquisition, storage, retention,

and use to new information. Oxford, Lavine and Crookal (1989) cited in

Hardan (2013: 1714) have the same idea as Rigeney (1978 : 20) about

language learning strategies. They stated that language learning strategies

are used to enhance and to facilitate language acquisition. They referred

to language learning strategies as "actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques

such us seeking out the target language conversation partners, or giving

oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language task used by

learners to enhance learning.

Differ with Wenden (1987: 15), she stated language learning

strategies can be defined from the aspect of language learning behaviors,

such as learning and regulating the meaning of a second or foreign

language, cognitive theory, such as learners strategic knowledge of

language learning, and the effective view, such as learners motivation

and attitude. It is argued that three points of views can improve language

13
learning. As stated earlier about language learning strategy, Rubin (1994

: 25) suggested that language learning strategies are routines, plans and

operations used by the learner to facilitate the acquisition, storage,

retrieval and use of information. According to them the objective in using

language learning startegies is to memorize language information, recall

that information and use it in a different situation. In other words,

language learning staregies refer to what students do to learn and to

regulate their learning.

According to Oxford (1990: 56) learners are being encouraged to

learn and use a board range of language learning strategies that can be

tapped throughout the learning process. This approach is based on the

belief that learning will be facilitated by making this students aware of

range of strategies from which they can choose during language learning

and use. Every learner have their strategies in language learning. Some

students learn words by breaking them down into their components and

some of them consciously use guessing when they read (Oxford, 1990:

43)

Language learning strategies has been categorized into several

clarification by the experts. One of the most comprehensive and complete

classifications is the classification by Oxford (1990 : 10). She mentioned

that strategies are prominent for language learning because they are tools

for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing

communicative competence. Oxford (1990 : 11) categorized language

14
learning strategies into direct and indirect strategies. The strategies used

directly in dealing with a new language are called direct strategies.

Oxford‟s direct strategies consist of three parts, memory strategies,

cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. Oxford‟s indirect

strategies include metacognitive strategies, affective (emotional,

motivation-related) strategies, and social strategies.

The categories of language learning strategies and the language

learning strategies is an essential role in language learning process

(Alfian: 2016). It represents one of the most critical components in

language learning. Language learning strategies very important for

language learning because they are tools for active, selfdirected

movement, which is essential for developing communicative competence

(Oxford, 1990 : 14). Furthermore, Gursoy (2010) cited in Alfian (2016)

who has stated that language learning strategies can also create a

productive, student-centred learning environment in which students are

encouraged to be autonomous or independent learners – learners who can

take control of their learning.

The researcher summarize the direct and indirect strategies by

Oxford (1990: 18) as follows:

a. Direct strategies

According to Oxford (1990: 17) the direct strategies are

beneficial to the students because they help store and recover

information. These strategies help learners to produce language

15
even when there is gap in knowledge. They also help to understand

and use the new language.

1. Memory strategies

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

simple principles like laying things out in order, making

association, and reviewing. These principles are employed

when a learner faces challenge of vocabulary learning. The

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, motion or touch.

2. Cognitive strategies

Oxford (1990: 17) states cognitive strategies is the most

popular strategies with language learners. The target language

is manipulated or transformed by repeating, analyzing or

summarizing. The four sets in this group are: Practicing,

Receiving and Sending Messages, Analyzing and Reasoning,

and Creating Structure for Input and Output.

3. Compensation Strategies

Oxford (1990: 17) states learners use compensation

strategies for comprehension of the target language when they

have insufficient knowledge of the target language. These

strategies make up for the deficiency in grammar and

16
 vocabulary. When learners do not know new words and

expressions, they guess the meaning. A learner brings own life

experience to interpret data by guessing.

b. Indirect strategies

Oxford (1990: 17) states indirect language learning

strategies work together with the direct strategies. They help

learner regulate the learning process. These strategies support and

manage language learning without direct engagement and therefore

called indirect strategies (Oxford, 1990).

1. Metecognitive Strategies

Oxford (1990: 17) states metacognitive strategies are

aspects associated with planning, monitoring, and evaluating

the language learning process (Fewell, 2010: 66).

Metacognitive strategies go beyond the cognitive mechanism

and give learners to coordinate their learning. This helps them

to plan language learning in an efficient way. When new

vocabulary, rules, and writing system confuse the learner, these

strategies become vital for successful language learning. Song

(2004) cited in Alfian (2016: 151) found that metacognitive

strategies were most frequently used by the students when

comparing to cognitive strategies.

2. Affective Strategies

17
 Oxford (1990: 17) states affective strategies are concerned

with the learners emotional requirements such as confidence

and perseverance needed for learners to involve themselves

actively in language learning, for example, lowering anxiety

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

The affective factors like emotion, attitude, motivation, and

values influence learning in an important way. Three sets of

strategies are included in this group: Lowering Your Anxiety,

Encouraging Yourself, and Taking Your Emotional

Temperature. Good language learners control their attitudes

and emotions about learning and understand that negative

feelings retard learning. Teachers can help generate positive

feeling in class by giving students more responsibility,

increasing the amount of natural communication, and teaching

affective strategies.

3. Social Strategies

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

behaviour; it is communication, and communication accure

between and among people (Oxford: 1990: 144) social

strategies are very important in learning a language because

language is used in communication and communication occurs

between people. Three sets of strategies are included in this

group: Asking Questions, Cooperating with others, and

18
 empathy with others. Among the three, asking questions is the

most helpful and comes closest to understanding the meaning.

It also helps in conversation by generating response from the

partner and shows interest and involvement. Cooperation with

others eliminates competition and in its place brings group

spirit. Studies show that cooperative learning results in higher

self-esteem, increased confidence, and rapid achievement.

2. Students Thinking Styles

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

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

students possess, we are able to insure that students understand what we

are teaching even if they have very different styles from our own.

Zhang (2011: 157) states that thinking styles refer to students‟

preferred ways of using the abilities that they have. Students‟ thinking

styles could predict students‟ course satisfaction and their learning

involvement. Differ with Batoret (2007: 1211) states thinking styles are,

in principle, value-free, for the same thinking style can serve on person

beautifully in one situation, but may fail the same person miserably in

another situation. Understanding thinking styles can help student to

understand well why some activities fit them and others don't, and even

why some students‟ fit them and others don't.

Sternberg (1997: 20) in mental self-governing theory defines 13 styles

of thinking classified in 5 dimensions that is:

19
a. Function (including the legislative, executive, and judicial styles).

1. Legislative Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 20) legislative people like to

come up with their own ways of doing things, and prefer to

decide for themselves what they will do and how they will do

it. Legislative people like to create their own rules and prefer

problems that are not prestructured and prefabricated. Example

Ben was a legislative stylist. Some of the preferred kinds of

activities of a legislative stylist are writing creative papers,

designing innovative projects, creating new business or

educational systems, and inventing new things. Some of the

kinds of occupations that legislative prefer are creative writer,

scientist, artist, sculptor, investment banker, policy maker, and

architect.

2. Executive Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 21) executive people like to

follow rules and prefer problems that are prestructured or

prefabricated. They like to fill in the gaps within existing

structures rather than to create the structures themselves. Some

of the kinds of activities they are likely are solving given

mathematical problems, applying rules to problems, giving

talks or lessons based on other people's ideas, and enforcing

rules. Some occupations that can be a good fit to executive

20
 thinkers are certain types of lawyer, police officer on patrol,

builder of other people's designs, soldier, and administrative

assistant.

3. Judicial Styles

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

evaluate rules and procedures, and prefer problems in which

one analyzes and evaluates existing things and ideas. The

judicial stylist likes activities such as writing critiques, giving

opinions, judging people about their work, and evaluating

programs. Some of their preferred kinds of occupations are

judge, critic, program evaluator, consultant, admissions officer,

grant and contract monitor, and systems analyst.

b. Forms (including the hierarchical, oligarchic, monarchic, and

anarchic styles).

1. Hierarchical Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 22) the hierarchic person has

a hierarchy of goals and recognizes the need to set priorities, as

all goals cannot always be fulfilled, or at least fulfilled equally

well. This person tends to be more accepting of complexity and

recognizes the need to view problems from a number of angle

to set priorities correctly.

21
2. Oligarchic Styles

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

like the hierarchic person in having a desire to do more than

one thing in time. But unlike hierarchic people, oligarchic

people tend to be motivated by several, often competing goals.

Often, these individuals feel pressured in the face, the

competing demands on their time and other resources. They are

not always sure what to do first, or how much time to allot to

each of the tasks they need to complete. They can become as

effective or even more effective than people with other styles.

3. Monarchic Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 23) a monarchic person is

someone who is single-minded and driven. The individual

tends not to let anything get in the way of his or her solving a

problem. Monarchic people can be counted on to get a thing

done, given that they have set their mind to it.

4. Anarchic Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 23) the anarchic person

seems to be motivated by a potpourri of needs and goals that

can be difficult for him or her, as well as for others, to sort out.

Anarchic people take what seems like a random approach to

problems; they tend to reject systems, and especially rigid ones,

22
 and to fight back at whatever system they see as confining

them.

c. Levels (including the global and local styles).

1. Global Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 24) global individuals prefer

to deal with relatively large and abstract issues. They ignore or

do not like details, and prefer to see the forest rather than the

trees. Like to deal with big picture, generalities, and

abstractions.

2. Local Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 24) local individuals like

concrete problems requiring working with details. They tend to

be oriented toward the pragmatics of a situation, and are down-

to-earth. The danger is that they may lose the forest for the

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

aviation and rocketry, have occurred when people have ignored

what seemed at the time to be small details. Thus, almost any

team requires at least some local individuals.

d. Scopes (including the internal and external styles)

1. Internal Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 25) internal individuals are

concerned with internal affairs - that is to say, these individuals

turn inward. They tend to be introverted, task oriented, aloof,

23
 and sometimes socially less aware. They like to work alone.

Essentially, their preference is to apply their intelligence to

things or ideas in isolation from other people.

2. External Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 25) external individuals tend

to be extroverted, outgoing, and peopleoriented. Often, they are

socially sensitive and aware of what is going on with others.

They like working with other people wherever possible. Many

of the questions that arise in education as to "what is better?"

stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the interaction of

styles with learning experience.

e. Leanings (including the liberal and conservative styles)

1. Liberal Styles

According to Sternberg (1997: 26) the liberal individual

likes to go beyond existing rules and procedures, to maximize

change, and to seek situations that are somewhat ambiguous.

The individual is not necessarily "politically" liberal. A

political conservative could have a liberal style in trying to

implement, say, a Republican agenda in a new and all-

encompassing way. Thrillseekers tend to have a liberal style, as

do people who, in general, quickly become bored.

2. Conservative Styles

24
 According to Sternberg (1997: 26) the conservative

individual likes to adhere to existing rules and procedures,

minimize change, avoid ambiguous situations where possible,

and stick with familiar situations in work and professional life.

This individual will be happiest in a structured and relatively

predictable environment. When such structure does not exist,

the individual may seek to create it.

Moreover, students use different thinking styles on the

basis of the stylistic demands of a given situation. Biggs &

Telfer (1987) have demonstrated that knowledge about

students‟ thinking styles is helpful for educators and

curriculum designers interested in designing effective and

workable teaching strategies that satisfy student needs. This is

essential to the aim of the teaching-learning process, which is

for students to receive meaningful knowledge that can be used

in new learning situations and retained longer in the mind.

Thinking styles can be affected by a variety like culture,

gender, age, parental styles, schools, different jobs and social

and economic status. Sternberg (1997: 16) believed that two

aspects of culture are relevant here: first is some societies are

likely to be more rewarding of certain styles than others. And

the second is the respective natures of individualistic and

collectivistic cultures may lead to different thinking styles .

25
 The way of students thinking styles between man and

woman is different. According to Sternberg (1997: 56) men

used higher frequency of styles than women and rated them self

as more global, internal and less judicial. Parents also

influenced students thinking styles. Sternberg (1997: 65) stated

that the way the parents react to their children questions and

what they encourage and reward at home reflect in their

thinking styles. Sternberg (1997: 12) stated that thinking styles

are related with creativity processes, problem solving and

decision making. Sternberg (1997: 17) it was expected that the

best predictors of students‟ thinking style would be those that

best fit or were most compatible with the way the class was

conducted and organized; in other words, students satisfaction

with the course would depend upon the consistency of the

students‟ thinking styles.

C. Hypothesis of The Research

Prediction over the truth regarding to the correlation between two or

more variables is called as hypothesis (Arikunto: 2016: 45). In analyzing the

data, the researcher used correlational quantitative research. The hypothesis

are going to be statement whether or not there are correlation among the two

variables.

According to Arikunto ( 2016: 47) there are two kinds of hypothesis

as follows:

26
1. Null hypothesis (Ho)

Statement which shows a negative correlation ( no correlation)

among variables is called Null hypothesis.

2. Alternative hyporhesis (Ha)

Statement which shows a positive correlation (there are

correlation) among variables is called Alternative hypothesis.

Therefore, the writer aims to propose two hypotheses as follows:

1. Ho: there is no significant correlation between language

learning strategies and students thinking styles.

2. Ha: there is significant correlation between language learning

strategies and students thinking styles.

27
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter the researcher presented the Research Methodology. It

consist of research design, research setting and participants, source of data, data

collection, data analysis and data validation.

A. Research Design

According to Kothari (2004: 27) A research design is arrangement of

conditions for collection and analysis of data in manner that aims to combine

relevance to the research purpose with economy in procedure.

Research is a process of steps used to collect and analyzed

information to increase our understanding of a topic or issue. It consist of

three steps: Pose a question, collect data to answer question and present an

answer to the question (Cresswell, 2008). In a research, an important role is

research methodology, because the quality of the data depends on it. There

are three kinds of research design in general (Cresswell, 2012: 12)

quantitative research design, qualitative research design and combined

research design. The researcher choose quantitative research design to

complete this research.

According to Creswell (2008: 117) the design of quantitative

purpose statement includes the variables in the study and their relationship,

the participants and the research site. The strength of using quantitative

research methods is short time frame for collecting the data and observation.

28
 Creswell (2012: 12) states there are three types quantitative research design;

experimental design, correlational design, and survey designs.

This research is categorized into correlative type. As Gay (1987:230)

stated that correlational research include collecting data in order to determine

whether, and to what degree, a relationship exist between two or more

variables. In this research this research have two variables that is: Language

Learning Strategies (X) and Students Thinking Styles (Y).

In this research, the researcher used quantitative research approach

to collect and analyzed the data to get the result of the correlation between

language learning strategies ad students thinking styles. The objectives of

this research is to know what is the relationship between language learning

strategies and students thinking styles, To know the effect of learning

strategy towards students thinking styles and to find out The significant

between language learning strategy and students thinking styles.

B. Research Settings and Participants

1. Location of the research

In this research, the researcher choose university students to be the

subject of this research and it takes university students especially in

language education department of IAIN Salatiga. There are two language

education department in IAIN Salatiga, that is English Education

Department and Arabic Education Department, the researcher chose

English Education Department batch 2014 as the participants of this

research because everyday they study English and they already

29
 understand what kind of strategies that fit them well. English Education

Department batch 2014 consist of 180 students and the reasearcher

limited the scope of the research participants. This research was

conducted at the university students of IAIN Salatiga.

2. Time of the research

The research was conducted on IAIN Salatiga on August, 20rd

2018. IAIN Salatiga is located in Jalan Lingkar Salatiga Km. 2 Salatiga.

IAIN Salatiga is very strategic and can be reached easily. The total

amount of students in IAIN Salatiga is more than of three thousand

students.

3. Population and Sample

a. Population

According to Arikunto (2002: 30), population is all of the subject

of the research. Differ with Pendey (2015: 40) stated that pupulation in

a research is the entire mess of observations, which acts as the main

group from which a sample is to be formed.

The population of this graduating paper is an university students of

IAIN Salatiga especially Language Education Department. IAIN

Salatiga have two Language Department that is English Education

Department and Arabic Education Department. The researcher choose

English Education Department as the participants of the research. In

this research the researcher choose English Education Department and

30
 limited the scoope of the participants. The researcher choose the

participants randomly.

b. Sample

Arikunto (2006: 131) states that sample is a part of the population

which is investigated. Same with Darmawan (2013: 138) sample is

part of population, it means that there will be no sample if there is no

population.

There are two kind of sampling in research that is probability

sampling and non-probability sampling. The probability sampling is

sampling technique which give the same chance for the whole

participants to become sample, usually it called as random sampling.

Non-probability sampling is the kind of sample which not give the

population to be the participant of sample (Darmawan, 2013: 145-

150).

The kind of sample that the researcher used in this research is

random sampling. In this reasearch the researcher used Arikunto‟s

theory to get the sample. Finally the researcher choose 25% of the

student‟s of English Education Department batch 2014 that is 45

students as the research participants in this research. So, the total

population of this research is 45 Students.

C. Variables of The Research

Everything which is determined by the researcher to be studied so can

obtain an information of the cases, than capture conclusion is called as

31
 variable (Sugiyono: 2017: 2). There are two kinds of variables in this

research:

a. Independent Variables

According to Sugiyono (2017: 4) variable that influences and

becomes the cause or the incidence of the dependent variable is called

as independent variable. The independent variable of this research is

language learning strategies noted as (X).

b. Dependent Variables

According to Sugiyono (2017: 4) variable which is influenced or

become the result, because of independent variable. Dependent

variable of this research is students thinking styles noted as (Y).

D. Research Instrument

Instrument is needed by the researcher to collect the data. Tool

which is used to collecting data for certain purpose is called as research

instrument (Periantalo: 2016:71). In this research the researcher used a

questionnaire to collect the data.

1. Questionnaire

Questionnaire is a set of printed or written questions with a choice

of answers, devised for the purpose of survey or statistical study.

According to Acharya (2010: 5) questionnaire is equally used in survey

research, experiments and other modes of observation. A questionnaire

is defined as a document containing questions and other type of items

designed solicit information appropriate to analysis (Babbie, 1990: 51).

32
Same with Borg and Gall (1983) stated that questionnaire is a research

instrument consisting of a series of questions and other prompts for the

purpose of gathering information from respondent. There are three

kinds of questionnaire according to Arikunto (2016: 103):

a. Open-ended Questionnaire

Open-ended questionnaire is a type of questionnaire which

allows the respondents to fill out the questionnaire according to

their will and circumstance.

b. Close-ended Questionnaire

Different from open-ended questionnaire, in this

questionnaire the respondents only need to give check list (√) on

the provided space.

c. Mixed Questionnaire

This questionnaire is a mixture of open-ended questionnaire

and close-ended questionnaire

In this research the researcher used an Close-ended questionnaire to

collect the data. Questionnaire as quantitative data collection instrument

was used by the researcher to collect the data. This questionnaire was

consist of 38 questions and it will allotted into 2 variables. The first is

about Language learning strategies which is in number 1-12 and the

second is about students thinking styles which is in number 1-26. The

participants give check list (√) based on their own experiences so it can

make truth result. This is belonging to free answer.

33
E. Test of the Research Instrument

Valid and reliable is the part of a good research instrument. The

research instruments should be valid and reliable to get a valid and reliable

result.

a. Validity

Sugiyono (2017: 352-354) states that there are three kind validity;

construct validity, content validity, and external validity. In this

research, the researcher tested construct validity. The test was to

correlate the scores of instrument items to know the validity. The

researcher conducted Pearson Product Moment Validity Testing using

SPSS 20.0

The instrument is valid if the r count > r table with significant

value 0.05. If r count < r table with significant value 0.05, the

instrument is not valid and cannot be used to collect data in the

research. The amount of the sample (N) is 47. Thus, the degree of

freedom (df) is 47-2= 45 and alpha= 0.05. It is gained r table= 0.294.

The result of the validity test can be seen in table 3.1 and 3.2.

Table 3.1

The Validation Result of Questionnaire Language Learning

Strategies

No Items r count r table Interpretation

1. 0.501 0.294 Valid

2. 0.545 0.294 Valid

34
 3. 0.475 0.294 Valid

4. 0.409 0.294 Valid

5. 0.553 0.294 Valid

6. 0.407 0.294 Valid

7. 0.536 0.294 Valid

8. 0.488 0.294 Valid

9. 0.409 0.294 Valid

10. 0.401 0.294 Valid

11. 0.471 0.294 Valid

12. 0.519 0.294 Valid

Table 3.2

The ValidationResult of Questionnaire Students Thinking

Styles

No Items r count r table Interpretation

1. 0.567 0.294 Valid

2. 0.584 0.294 Valid

3. 0.502 0.294 Valid

4. 0.445 0.294 Valid

5. 0.483 0.294 Valid

6. 0.458 0.294 Valid

7. 0.521 0.294 Valid

35
 8. 0.552 0.294 Valid

9. 0.695 0.294 Valid

10. 0.576 0.294 Valid

11. 0.482 0.294 Valid

12. 0.397 0.294 Valid

13. 0.419 0.294 Valid

14. 0.594 0.294 Valid

15. 0.334 0.294 Valid

16. 0.558 0.294 Valid

17. 0.305 0.294 Valid

18. 0.429 0.294 Valid

19. 0.534 0.294 Valid

20. 0.578 0.294 Valid

21. 0.297 0.294 Valid

22. 0.581 0.294 Valid

23. 0.565 0.294 Valid

24. 0.445 0.294 Valid

25. 0.313 0.294 Valid

26. 0.298 0.294 Valid

b. Reliability

According to Sugiyono (2017 : 348) Reliability refers to a

consistency of an instrument in measuring what to be measured and it

36
used multiple times to measure the same object, the result remains the

same. The researcher used internal consistency reliability test in this

research. When the alpha is more than 0.7 is the reliable instrument

(Muijis, 2004: 73).

Table 3.3

The Reliability result of Questionnaire Language Learning

Strategies

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized N of
Alpha Items Items
.713 .771 13

From the table 1.3 it can be seen that the instrument is reliable

because the value more than 0.7 or 0.713.

Table 3.4

The Reliability Result of Questionnaire Students Thinking Styles

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized N of
Alpha Items Items
.736 .885 27
From the table 1.3 it can be seen that the instrument is reliable

because the value more than 0.7 or 0.736.

37
F. Technique of the Data Analysis

In this research, the researcher used correlational quantitative

research. The researcher used Correlation Product Moment which

developed by Carl Pearson to know the correlation between two variables.

The formula is:

1. Finding the correlation uses formula

r = Pearson‟s Correlation Coefficient

N = Number of Participants

X = Students‟ Language Learning Strategies

Y = Students‟ Thinking Styles

∑X = The Sum of Language learning Strategies

∑Y = The Sum of Students Thinking Styles

∑X2 = The Sum of Squared Language Learning Strategies

∑Y2 = The Sum of Squared Student‟s Thinking Styles

∑XY = The Sum of Multiplied Scores between X and Y

This formula is used to find out an index correlation “r”

product moment between variable X and Y.

2. To interpret the index scores of correlation“r” product moment

between variable X and Y (rxy), the researcher uses the interpretation

such below:

38
 Table 3.5

The Coefficient Correlation

The Score of “r” Product Interpretation

Moment (rxy)

0.00 – 0.199 Very low correlation.

0.20 – 0.399 Low correlation

0.40 – 0.599 Moderate correlation

0.60– 0.799 High correlation

0.80- 1.000 Very high correlation

39
 CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter the researcher presents the research finding and discussion.

It consists of data description, data analysis and discussion, source of data, data

collection, data analysis and data validation.

A. Data Description

In this chapter the researcher shows the result of data that researcher got

from the questionnaire. There are two kinds of questionnaire in this research.

The first questionnaire is about language learning strategies (X) consist of 12

questionnaire. The second questionnaire is about students thinking styles (Y)

consist of 26 questionnaire. The total amount of questionnaire is 38. In this

research, the researcher conducted the research at IAIN Salatiga. The

researcher was chose some students of English Education Department of IAIN

Salatiga. The total amount of the participants were 47 students. The data of

independent variable and dependent variable gained from the participants are

described as follows:

1. Language Learning Strategies and Students Thinking Styles Scores

To measure the level of language learning strategies and students

thinking styles the researcher distributed a questionnaire. There were 2

kinds of questionnaire in this research. The first questionnaire was about

language learning strategies and it consisted of 12 items. The second

questionnaire was about students thinking styles and it consisted of 26

40
items. The students only needed to checklist on the answer options

provided because it classified into close-ended question.

The scores of language learning strategies and students thinking

styles are shown in table 2.1 and 2.2

Table 4.1

The Scores of Language Learning Strategies

No. Students Code Name LLS (X)

1. NAA 60

2. DKA 47

3. DOA 41

4. DAS 49

5. BWY 43

6. QDA 46

7. NSD 45

8. AMG 53

9. NSA 47

10. EMA 45

11. KHN 41

12. ANA 54

13. AAH 49

14. AJN 48

15. NAF 49

41
16. YNI 42

17. FYI 48

18. ANN 49

19. MSA 46

20. AFI 55

21. MMN 48

22. ANI 48

23. MAF 52

24. MRN 54

25. MBS 46

26. NAD 48

27. LKI 49

28. ULL 51

29. KAS 53

30. ZFS 45

31. DAS 42

32. AFH 43

33. ANS 43

34. AMH 45

35. ARH 39

36. ABH 42

37. AWK 42

42
38. ANR 40

39. AWI 43

40. APS 47

41. BSO 48

42. ERA 48

43. DHY 48

44. DMM 48

45. DTH 48

46. DAA 48

47. DIR 48

Table 4.2

The Scores of Students Thinking Styles

No. Students Code Name STS (X)

1. NAA 107

2. DKA 94

3. DOA 88

4. DAS 96

5. BWY 82

6. QDA 106

7. NSD 97

8. AMG 116

43
9. NSA 86

10. EMA 88

11. KHN 69

12. ANA 90

13. AAH 115

14. AJN 83

15. NAF 92

16. YNI 84

17. FYI 97

18. ANN 91

19. MSA 104

20. AFI 90

21. MMN 98

22. ANI 99

23. MAF 103

24. MRN 117

25. MBS 93

26. NAD 86

27. LKI 102

28. ULL 106

29. KAS 107

30. ZFS 99

44
 31. DAS 87

32. AFH 91

33. ANS 86

34. AMH 90

35. ARH 87

36. ABH 90

37. AWK 88

38. ANR 90

39. AWI 91

40. APS 92

41. BSO 98

42. ERA 91

43. DHY 92

44. DMM 92

45. DTH 93

46. DAA 99

47. DIR 94

a. The Profile of Language Learning Strategies

Based on table 1.1, the researcher calculates the statistical scores of

language learning strategies data including mean, median, mode,

maximum score, minimum score, and range of the data. The researcher

45
 uses SPSS 20.0. to find out the data needed. The result is presented in

table 2.2.

Table 4.3

The Profile of Language Learning Strategies

Statistics
Language Learning Strategies

Valid 47
N
Missing 0
Mean 47.09
Median 48.00
Mode 48
Range 21
Minimum 39
Maximum 60
From the table above, it can be seen that the mean is 47.09, the

median is 48.00, the mode is 48, the range is 21, the minimum score is

39 and the maximum score is 60.

b. The Profile of Students Thinking Styles Data

Based on table 2.2, the researcher calculates the statistical scores of

students thinking styles data including mean, median, mode, maximum

score, minimum score, and range of the data. The researcher uses

SPSS 20.0. to find out the data needed. The result is presented in table

2.4.

46
 Table 4.4

The Profile Students Thinking Styles

Statistics
Students Thinking Styles

Valid 47
N
Missing 0
Mean 94.38
Median 92.00
Mode 90
Range 48
Minimum 69
Maximum 117

From the table above, it can be seen that the meanis94.38, the

median is 92.00, the mode is 90, the range is 48, the minimum score is

69 and the maximum score is 117.

B. Data Analysis

1. Correlation Result

In this research as mentioned in the previous chapter, the

researcher analyzed the result of the questionnaire used SPSS 20.0 to see

whether there is any correlation between language learning strategies and

students thinking styles. The result is presented in table 2.5.

Table 4.5

The Coefficient Correlation between Language Learning

Strategies and Students Thinking Styles

Correlations

47
 Language Students
Learning Thinking
Strategies Styles
Pearson
Language 1 .606**
Correlation
Learning
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Strategies
N 47 47
Pearson
.606** 1
Students Correlation
Thinking Styles Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 47 47
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Based on the table guidelines of Pearson‟s correlation the final

score shows that the correlation coefficient is rcount 0.606. It includes

in the fourth level as high correlation (0.60-0.799) which means the

correlation between two variables is high. The significant value is

0.000 which mean that the correlation between two variables is

significance. It considers that there is positive correlation between

language learning strategies and students thinking styles.

2. Regression Result

In this research the researcher used SPSS 20.0 to find out the effect

language learning strategies towards students thinking styles. The result

is presented in table 3.1.

48
 Table 4.6

The effect of Language Learning Strategies toward Students

thinking Styles

Model Summaryb

Mode R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of

l Square the Estimate

1 .606a .368 .354 7.469

a. Predictors: (Constant), Language Learning Strategies

b. Dependent Variable: Students Thinking Styles

Based on the tables guidelines of Pearson, the table shows that the

correlation coefficient (r count ) is 0.606 and the determination

coefficient (R Square) is 0.368. Which means that there is effect of

language learning strategies toward students thinking styles. The effect

of language learning strategies towards students thinking styles is 36.8

%.

3. Hypothesis Testing

This research is aimed to answer the hypothesis that it can be accepted

or rejected.

1. (Ho) Null Hypothesis

There is no significant correlation between language learning

strategies and students thinking styles.

2. (Ha) Alternative Hypothesis

49
 There is significant correlation between between language learning

strategies and students thinking styles.

The hypothesis will be tested as the following criteria:

If r count< r table means Ho is accepted and Ha is rejected.

If r count> r table means Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted.

The correlation coefficient is rcount = 0.606, significant value 0.00

<0.05, N = 45 (gained from rtable= 0.294). From the calculation it can be

seen that rcount(0.606) is more than rtable(0.294) and conclude that Ho is

rejected and Ha is accepted which means there is correlation between

language learning strategies and students thinking styles. The coefficient

determination is 0.368, which mean that the effect of language learning

strategies toward students thinking styles is 36.8%.

To see the significance of the correlation, the researcher tests the

following hypothesis:

If ρ > 0.05, thus Ho is accepted Ha is rejected.

If ρ < 0.05, thus Ho is rejected Ha is accepted.

From the table 2.5, it can be seen that the significance value =

0.000 < 0.05 which means Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted. Therefore, it

can be summed up that there is a significant correlation between language

learning strategies and students thinking styles.

50
C. Discussion

The researcher stated in the first chapter the aim of this study was to

investigate whether there is significant relationship between language

learning strategies and students thinking styles of the students of English

education department of IAIN SALATIGA. English is considered as the

world prime language which is used all people in this world..Many school in

Indonesia make English as their compulsion lesson in junior and senior high

school.

The researcher has collected the data needed in this research for

verifying the hypothesis. There are one instruments used in this research, that

is questionnaire. The researcher used two questionnaire to collect the data of

two variable. The first questionnaire is consist 12 questions about language

learning strategies. The second questionnaire is consist of 26 questions about

students thinking styles. The total question of this research is 38 questions.

According to the calculation above, the correlation result between

language learning strategies and students thinking styles is higher than

rtable(0.606> 0.294). Based on the table interpretation, the correlation

coefficient r count = 0.606 was considered as high correlation because it

included in the fourth category (0.60 – 0.799). It means there is positive

correlation between the two variables. In addition, the significance values is

ρ = 0.00 < 0.05 which means that the correlation was significant.And the

coefficient determination is R Square = 0.368, which means that the effect of

language learning strategies toward students thinking styles is 36.8 %.

51
 This research is the same with Ahmadi, Gorjian, Pazhakh (2014) that

there is positive correlation between language learning strategies and

students thinking styles (r = 0.793). This research is also supported by the

research of Mahmood, K. B., Hashemnezhad, H., & Javidi, S. (2013) which

found out that there is significant relationship between language learning

strategies and students thinking styles (r = 0176).

Based on the description above, it can be conclude that there is a

significant relationship between language learning strategies.

52
 CHAPTER V

CLOSURE

A. Conclusion

Based on the findings of the data analysis, the researcher formulates

several conclusions to answer the research problems:

1. The profile of language learning strategies are the mean is 47.09, the

median is 48.00, the mode is 48, the range is 21, the minimum score is

39 and the maximum score is 60.

2. Based on the research finding in table 4.4, it can be seen that the

meanis94.38, the median is 92.00, the mode is 90, the range is 48, the

minimum score is 69 and the maximum score is 117.

3. There is positive significant relationship between language learning

strategies and student thinking styles of the students English education

department IAIN Salatiga. It can be proved by the correlation

coefficient (r count) and significance value (ρ) got from the calculation r

count = 0.606, ρ = 0.000 < 0.05. Therefore the correlation between

language learning strategies and students thinking styles is significant.

B. Suggestion

Based on the research findings and discussion, the researcher proposes the

following suggestions:

1. For students

For English students, even though the result of this research is include

in high correlation between language learning strategies and student

53
 thinking styles, students have to pay attention when learning English so

it can increase in very high level.

2. For future research

For future researchers, this research can be beneficial. This research

also can be reference for their researches. The researcher suggests the

future researchers to conduct researches about language learning

strategies and students thinking styles.

54
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmadi, Siavash.,Gorjian, Bahman.&Pazkhah, Abdol Reza. (2014). The Effect Of
Thinking Styles On EFL Learners’ Language Learning Strategies in
Reading Comprehension. Iran: IJLLALW
Alfian. (2016). The Application of Language Learning Strategies of High School
Students In Indonesia. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education),
3(2), 140-157
Alhaysony, M. (2017).Language Learning Strategies Use by Saudi EFL Students:
The Effect of Duration of English Language Study and Gender. University
of Hail, Vol7 no 1
Arikunto, S. 2002. ProsedurPenelitian, suatuPendekatanPraktik.
Jakarta: PT Intan Putra
Arikunto, S. 2006. MetodePenelitianKualitatif. Jakarta: BumiAksara
Arikunto, S. 2016. ProsedurPenelitianSuatuPendekatanPraktik. Jakarta:
RinekaCipta
Batoret, F, D. 2007. The Influence of Students‟ and Teachers‟ Thinking Styles on
Student Course Satisfaction and on Their Learning
Process.UniversitatFaumeVol. 27, No. 2
Babbie, Earl R. 2010. Survey Research Methods, 2nd Edition. Belmont CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company
Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. 1983.Educational Research: An Introduction. New
York: Longman
Chamot, A.U. 2004. Issues in language learning strategy research and
teaching.Journal of Foreign language teaching. Vol.1, No. 1,PP.14-26
National University of Singapure
Chegeni, S., Darabi, R., &Niroomandi, Maryam. (2016). Predicting Creative
Thinking of Students Based on Sternberg Thinking Styles.Vol 5, Issue 3
Cresswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research: planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Garamond: TexTech
Cresswell, J.W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. United States: Library of Congress Cataloging
Darmawan, D. 2013. MetodePenelitianKuantitatif. Bandung: RemajaRosdakarya
Dweck, C.S. 2006.The New Psychology of Success. United States: Random House

55
Gay, L. R. 1987. Educational Research, Competencies for Analysis and
Application. Ohio: Merril Publishing Company
Ghani, M. 2003. Language Learning Strategies Employed by L2 Learners. Journal
of Research (Faculty of Languages and & Islamic Studies) 2003 Vol 4
Hardan, A. A. 2013. Language Learning Strategies: A General Overview. Iraq:
Elsevier Ltd
Ismail, N. M. 2012. Using Learning Styles, Thinking Styles and Students`
Attitudes to Predict English Language Achievement at the College
Level.Taif UniversityVol. 77, 333-374
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology. New Delhi: New Age International
Mahmood, K. B., Hashemnezhad, H., &Javidi, S. (2013). The relationship
between language learning strategies and thinking styles of Iranian EFL
learners.International Journal of Research Studies in Language
Learning.3-19.
Muijis, D. (2004). Doing Quantitative Research with SPSS. Great Britain:
Athenaeum Ltd
Nyikos, M. (1990).Sex-Related Differences in Adult Language Learning:
Socialization and Memory Factors. Modern Language Journa, 74 ( 3),
273-287.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
Periantalo, Jelpa. 2016. PenelitianKuantitativeuntukPsikologi. Yogyakarta:
PustakaPelajar
Sugiyono. 2017. MetodePenelitianKuantitatif, Kualitatifdan R& D. Bandung:
Alfabeta.
Sugiyono. 2017. StatistikaUntukPenelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Wenden, A L &Rubin, J. (eds) (1987). Learner strategies in language
learning.UK: Prentice Hall
Zhang, Li-Fang & Zhu, Chang.2011. Thinking styles and conceptions of creativity
among university students. Vol. 31, No. 3 University of Brussels

56
APPENDICES
Appendix 1

Name:

NIM:

Questionnaire

Read each statement carefully and decide how well it describes you. Use the scale

provided to indicate how well the statement fits the way you typically do things at

school, at home, or on a job. There is no right or wrong answer. Please read each

statement. Check the number on the scale that best indicates how well the

statement describes you. Please proceed at your own pace. Do not spend too much

time on any one statement

Notes:

1: Never 3: Often 5: Always

2: Sometimes 4: Usually

NO Question Scale

1 2 3 4 5

A. Question 1-10 Language Learning

Strategies

1. I use new English words in a sentence so I can

remember them.

2. I review English lessons often.

3. I say or write new English words several

times.

4. I practice the sounds of English.

5. I read English without looking up every new

word.

6. When I can't think of a word during a

conversation in English, I use gestures.

7. I try to guess what the other person will say

next in English.

8. To understand unfamiliar English words, I

make guesses.

9. I pay attention when someone is speaking

English.

10. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time

to study English.

11. I look for people I can talk to in English.

12. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I

am learning English.

B. 1-26 Students’ Thinking Styles

1. When faced with a problem, I use my own

ideas and strategies (ways) to solve it.

2. I like to play with my ideas and see how far

 they go.

3. I like to figure out how to solve a problem

following certain (definite) rules.

4. I am careful to use the proper method to solve

any problem.

5. I like situations where I can compare and rate

different ways of doing things.

6. I like to check and rate opposing points of

view or conflicting ideas.

7. I like to set priorities (order of importance) for

the things I need to do I start doing them.

8. When working on a task, I can see how the

parts relate to the overall goal of the task.

9. When discussing or writing about a topic, I

stick to points of view accepted by my

colleagues.

10. I prefer to work on a project or task that is

acceptable to and approved by my peers.

11. When talking or writing about ideas, I stick to

one main idea.

12. When trying to make a decision, I tend to see

only one major factor.

13. I can switch from one task to another easily,

 because all tasks seem to me to be equally

important.

14. When there are many important things to do, I

try to do as many as I can in whatever time I

have.

15. I tend to pay little attention (not as much) to

detail.

16. I care more about the general effect than about

the details of a task I have to do.

17. I prefer to deal with specific problems, rather

than with general questions.

18. In discussing or writing on a topic, I think the

details and facts are more important than the

overall picture.

19. I like to control all phases of a project without

having to consult with (ask) others.

20. When trying to make a decision, I rely on my

own judgment of the situation.

21. When starting a task, I like to brainstorm

(think of) ideas with friends or peers.

22. In a discussion or report, I like to combine my

own ideas with those of others.

23. I like to challenge old ideas or ways of doing

 things and seek better ones.

24. When faced with a problem, I prefer to try

new strategies (ways) or methods to solve it.

25. I stick to standard rules or ways of doing

things.

26. When I am in charge of something, I like to

follow methods and Ideas used in the past.

Name: Dwi Ayu Subekti

NIM: 113-14-101

Questionnaire

Read each statement carefully and decide how well it describes you. Use the scale

provided to indicate how well the statement fits the way you typically do things at

school, at home, or on a job. There is no right or wrong answer. Please read each

statement. Check the number on the scale that best indicates how well the

statement describes you. Please proceed at your own pace. Do not spend too much

time on any one statement

Notes:

1: Never 3: Often 5: Always

2: Sometimes 4: Usually

NO Question Scale

1 2 3 4 5

A. Question 1-10 Language Learning

Strategies

1. I use new English words in a sentence so I 

can remember them.

2. I review English lessons often. 

3. I say or write new English words several 

 times.

4. I practice the sounds of English. 

5. I read English without looking up every new 

word.

6. When I can't think of a word during a 

conversation in English, I use gestures.

7. I try to guess what the other person will say 

next in English.

8. To understand unfamiliar English words, I 

make guesses.

9. I pay attention when someone is speaking 

English.

10. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time 

to study English.

11. I look for people I can talk to in English. 

12. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I 

am learning English.

B. 1-26 Students’ Thinking Styles

1. When faced with a problem, I use my own 

ideas and strategies (ways) to solve it.

2. I like to play with my ideas and see how far 

they go.
3. I like to figure out how to solve a problem 

following certain (definite) rules.

4. I am careful to use the proper method to solve 

any problem.

5. I like situations where I can compare and rate 

different ways of doing things.

6. I like to check and rate opposing points of 

view or conflicting ideas.

7. I like to set priorities (order of importance) 

for the things I need to do I start doing them.

8. When working on a task, I can see how the 

parts relate to the overall goal of the task.

9. When discussing or writing about a topic, I 

stick to points of view accepted by my

colleagues.

10. I prefer to work on a project or task that is 

acceptable to and approved by my peers.

11. When talking or writing about ideas, I stick to 

one main idea.

12. When trying to make a decision, I tend to see 

only one major factor.

13. I can switch from one task to another easily, 

because all tasks seem to me to be equally

 important.

14. When there are many important things to do, I 

try to do as many as I can in whatever time I

have.

15. I tend to pay little attention (not as much) to 

detail.

16. I care more about the general effect than 

about the details of a task I have to do.

17. I prefer to deal with specific problems, rather 

than with general questions.

18. In discussing or writing on a topic, I think the 

details and facts are more important than the

overall picture.

19. I like to control all phases of a project without 

having to consult with (ask) others.

20. When trying to make a decision, I rely on my 

own judgment of the situation.

21. When starting a task, I like to brainstorm 

(think of) ideas with friends or peers.

22. In a discussion or report, I like to combine my 

own ideas with those of others.

23. I like to challenge old ideas or ways of doing 

things and seek better ones.

24. When faced with a problem, I prefer to try 

new strategies (ways) or methods to solve it.

25. I stick to standard rules or ways of doing 

things.

26. When I am in charge of something, I like to 

follow methods and Ideas used in the past.

Name: Khoirino Hasyin

NIM: 113-14-100

Questionnaire

Read each statement carefully and decide how well it describes you. Use the scale

provided to indicate how well the statement fits the way you typically do things at

school, at home, or on a job. There is no right or wrong answer. Please read each

statement. Check the number on the scale that best indicates how well the

statement describes you. Please proceed at your own pace. Do not spend too much

time on any one statement

Notes:

1: Never 3: Often 5: Always

2: Sometimes 4: Usually

NO Question Scale

1 2 3 4 5

A. Question 1-10 Language Learning

Strategies

1. I use new English words in a sentence so I 

can remember them.

2. I review English lessons often. 

3. I say or write new English words several 

 times.

4. I practice the sounds of English. 

5. I read English without looking up every new 

word.

6. When I can't think of a word during a 

conversation in English, I use gestures.

7. I try to guess what the other person will say 

next in English.

8. To understand unfamiliar English words, I 

make guesses.

9. I pay attention when someone is speaking 

English.

10. I plan my schedule so I will have enough 

time to study English.

11. I look for people I can talk to in English. 

12. I talk to someone else about how I feel when 

I am learning English.

B. 1-26 Students’ Thinking Styles

1. When faced with a problem, I use my own 

ideas and strategies (ways) to solve it.

2. I like to play with my ideas and see how far 

they go.
3. I like to figure out how to solve a problem 

following certain (definite) rules.

4. I am careful to use the proper method to solve 

any problem.

5. I like situations where I can compare and rate 

different ways of doing things.

6. I like to check and rate opposing points of 

view or conflicting ideas.

7. I like to set priorities (order of importance) 

for the things I need to do I start doing them.

8. When working on a task, I can see how the 

parts relate to the overall goal of the task.

9. When discussing or writing about a topic, I 

stick to points of view accepted by my

colleagues.

10. I prefer to work on a project or task that is 

acceptable to and approved by my peers.

11. When talking or writing about ideas, I stick to 

one main idea.

12. When trying to make a decision, I tend to see 

only one major factor.

13. I can switch from one task to another easily, 

because all tasks seem to me to be equally

 important.

14. When there are many important things to do, 

I try to do as many as I can in whatever time I

have.

15. I tend to pay little attention (not as much) to 

detail.

16. I care more about the general effect than 

about the details of a task I have to do.

17. I prefer to deal with specific problems, rather 

than with general questions.

18. In discussing or writing on a topic, I think the 

details and facts are more important than the

overall picture.

19. I like to control all phases of a project 

without having to consult with (ask) others.

20. When trying to make a decision, I rely on my 

own judgment of the situation.

21. When starting a task, I like to brainstorm 

(think of) ideas with friends or peers.

22. In a discussion or report, I like to combine 

my own ideas with those of others.

23. I like to challenge old ideas or ways of doing 

things and seek better ones.

24. When faced with a problem, I prefer to try 

new strategies (ways) or methods to solve it.

25. I stick to standard rules or ways of doing 

things.

26. When I am in charge of something, I like to 

follow methods and Ideas used in the past.

Name: Mar‟atus Saniyah

NIM: 113-14-102

Questionnaire

Read each statement carefully and decide how well it describes you. Use the scale

provided to indicate how well the statement fits the way you typically do things at

school, at home, or on a job. There is no right or wrong answer. Please read each

statement. Check the number on the scale that best indicates how well the

statement describes you. Please proceed at your own pace. Do not spend too much

time on any one statement

Notes:

1: Never 3: Often 5: Always

2: Sometimes 4: Usually

NO Question Scale

1 2 3 4 5

A. Question 1-10 Language Learning

Strategies

1. I use new English words in a sentence so I 

can remember them.

2. I review English lessons often. 

3. I say or write new English words several 

 times.

4. I practice the sounds of English. 

5. I read English without looking up every new 

word.

6. When I can't think of a word during a 

conversation in English, I use gestures.

7. I try to guess what the other person will say 

next in English.

8. To understand unfamiliar English words, I 

make guesses.

9. I pay attention when someone is speaking 

English.

10. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time 

to study English.

11. I look for people I can talk to in English. 

12. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I 

am learning English.

B. 1-26 Students’ Thinking Styles

1. When faced with a problem, I use my own 

ideas and strategies (ways) to solve it.

2. I like to play with my ideas and see how far 

they go.
3. I like to figure out how to solve a problem 

following certain (definite) rules.

4. I am careful to use the proper method to solve 

any problem.

5. I like situations where I can compare and rate 

different ways of doing things.

6. I like to check and rate opposing points of 

view or conflicting ideas.

7. I like to set priorities (order of importance) 

for the things I need to do I start doing them.

8. When working on a task, I can see how the 

parts relate to the overall goal of the task.

9. When discussing or writing about a topic, I 

stick to points of view accepted by my

colleagues.

10. I prefer to work on a project or task that is 

acceptable to and approved by my peers.

11. When talking or writing about ideas, I stick to 

one main idea.

12. When trying to make a decision, I tend to see 

only one major factor.

13. I can switch from one task to another easily, 

because all tasks seem to me to be equally

 important.

14. When there are many important things to do, I 

try to do as many as I can in whatever time I

have.

15. I tend to pay little attention (not as much) to 

detail.

16. I care more about the general effect than 

about the details of a task I have to do.

17. I prefer to deal with specific problems, rather 

than with general questions.

18. In discussing or writing on a topic, I think the 

details and facts are more important than the

overall picture.

19. I like to control all phases of a project without 

having to consult with (ask) others.

20. When trying to make a decision, I rely on my 

own judgment of the situation.

21. When starting a task, I like to brainstorm 

(think of) ideas with friends or peers.

22. In a discussion or report, I like to combine my 

own ideas with those of others.

23. I like to challenge old ideas or ways of doing 

things and seek better ones.

24. When faced with a problem, I prefer to try 

new strategies (ways) or methods to solve it.

25. I stick to standard rules or ways of doing 

things.

26. When I am in charge of something, I like to 

follow methods and Ideas used in the past.

Appendix 2

Placement the questionnaire

1. The questionnaire of Language Learning Strategies

Question Kind of Language Learning Strategies

Number

1. Memory Strategies

2. Memory Strategies

3. Cognitive Strategies

4. Cognitive Strategies

5. Compensation Strategies

6. Compensation Strategies

7. Metacognitive Strategies

8. Metacognitive Strategies

9. Affective Strategies

10. Affective Strategies

11. Social Strategies

12. Social Strategies

2. The questionnaire of Students Thinking Styles.

Question Kind of Students Thinking Styles

Number
1. Legislative Styles

2. Legislative Styles

3. Executive Styles

4. Executive Styles

5. Judicial Styles

6. Judicial Styles

7. Hierarchy Styles

8. Hierarchy Styles

9. Oligarchy Styles

10. Oligarchy Styles

11. Monarchy Styles

12. Monarchy Styles

13. Anarchy Styles

14. Anarchy Styles

15. Global Styles

16. Global Styles

17. Local Styles

18. Local Styles

19. Internal Styles

20. Internal Styles

21. External Styles

22. External Styles

23. Liberal Styles

24. Liberal Styles

25. Conservative styles

26. Conservative styles

Appendix 3

The Score of Language Learning Strategies Value

Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

NAA
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 60
DKA
4 5 4 4 5 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 47
DOA
4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 41
DAS
5 5 3 3 5 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 49
BWY
4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 43
QDA
3 4 3 3 4 5 3 5 5 4 3 4 46
NSD
4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 45
AMG
5 4 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 53
NSA
3 3 5 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 3 3 47
EMA
3 3 3 4 3 5 5 4 4 5 3 3 45
KHN
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 3 3 41
ANA
3 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 54
AAH
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 49
AJN
5 3 3 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 48
NAF
5 4 3 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 5 4 49
YNI
4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 42
FYI
4 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 48
ANN
4 3 4 4 3 5 3 5 5 5 4 4 49
MSA
4 3 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 4 46
AFI
5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 55
MMN
5 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 3 5 5 4 48
ANI
3 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 3 4 48
MAF
5 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 52
MRN
5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 54
MBS
3 5 4 3 5 4 4 3 3 4 3 5 46
NAD
4 5 4 3 5 4 3 3 3 5 4 5 48
LKI
4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 49
ULL
4 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 4 4 3 51
KAS
4 5 4 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 53
ZFS
4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 45
DAS
4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 42
AFH
4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 43
ANS
3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 43
AMH
4 4 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 45
ARH
3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 39
ABH
4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 42
AWK
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 42
ANR
3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 40
AWI
4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 43
APS
4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 47
BSO
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 48
ERA
4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 48
DHY
5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 48
DMM
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 48
DTH
4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 48
DAA
4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 48
DIR
5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 48
 Appendix 5
The Validation Value of Language Learning Strategies
Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item total
_1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 _7 _8 _9 _10 _11 _12
Pearson * * *
.397 .454 .639 .50
Correlatio 1 *
.260 *
.195 .034 .072 .019 -.066 -.089 *
.057 **
1
Item n
_1 Sig. (2- .00
.006 .078 .001 .189 .818 .633 .897 .661 .553 .000 .705
tailed) 0
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson * *
.397 * *
.805 .54
Correlatio *
1 .372 .306 *
.101 .136 -.105 -.231 .042 .059 .276 **
5
Item n
_2 Sig. (2- .00
.006 .010 .037 .000 .501 .361 .484 .119 .781 .696 .060
tailed) 0
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson
* *
.47
Correlatio .260 .372 1 .337 .194 .086 .232 .219 .108 -.097 -.074 .115 **
5
Item n
_3 Sig. (2- .00
.078 .010 .021 .190 .564 .116 .138 .469 .516 .619 .440
tailed) 1
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson *
.454 * *
.40
Correlatio *
.306 .337 1 .095 .013 .236 .074 -.096 .060 .049 -.035 **
9
Item n
_4 Sig. (2- .00
.001 .037 .021 .526 .929 .111 .620 .521 .689 .744 .815
tailed) 4
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson *
.805 * * *
.55
Correlatio .195 *
.194 .095 1 .295 .319 .077 -.242 .052 .065 .293 **
3
Item n
_5 Sig. (2- .00
.189 .000 .190 .526 .044 .029 .605 .102 .726 .666 .046
tailed) 0
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson
Item * * *
.40
Correlatio .034 .101 .086 .013 .295 1 .313 .340 .019 .093 -.086 .080 **
_6 7
n
 Sig. (2- .00
.818 .501 .564 .929 .044 .032 .019 .899 .533 .565 .592
tailed) 4
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson *
* *
.424 .53
Correlatio .072 .136 .232 .236 .319 .313 1 *
.154 .024 .030 .085 **
6
Item n
_7 Sig. (2- .00
.633 .361 .116 .111 .029 .032 .003 .302 .871 .842 .572
tailed) 0
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson * *
*
.424 .671 .48
Correlatio .019 -.105 .219 .074 .077 .340 *
1 *
.101 -.003 -.045 **
8
Item n
_8 Sig. (2- .00
.897 .484 .138 .620 .605 .019 .003 .000 .500 .986 .765
tailed) 1
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson * *
.671 .373 *
.40
Correlatio -.066 -.231 .108 -.096 -.242 .019 .154 *
1 *
.332 .254 **
9
Item n
_9 Sig. (2- .00
.661 .119 .469 .521 .102 .899 .302 .000 .010 .023 .085
tailed) 4
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson * *
.373 .394 .40
Correlatio -.089 .042 -.097 .060 .052 .093 .024 .101 *
1 .276 * **
1
Item n
_10 Sig. (2- .00
.553 .781 .516 .689 .726 .533 .871 .500 .010 .060 .006
tailed) 5
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson * *
.639 *
.403 .47
Correlatio *
.059 -.074 .049 .065 -.086 .030 -.003 .332 .276 1 * **
1
Item n
_11 Sig. (2- .00
.000 .696 .619 .744 .666 .565 .842 .986 .023 .060 .005
tailed) 1
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Pearson * *
*
.394 .403 .51
Correlatio .057 .276 .115 -.035 .293 .080 .085 -.045 .254 * *
1 **
9
Item n
_12 Sig. (2- .00
.705 .060 .440 .815 .046 .592 .572 .765 .085 .006 .005
tailed) 0
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
 Pearson * * * * * * * * * * * *
.501 .545 .475 .409 .553 .407 .536 .488 .409 .401 .471 .519
Correlatio * * * * * * * * * * * *
1
n
Total
Sig. (2-
.000 .000 .001 .004 .000 .004 .000 .001 .004 .005 .001 .000
tailed)
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Appendix 6
Validation value of Students Thinking Styles

Correlations

item_ item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pearson ** **
1 .733 .435 .103 .156 .125
Correlation
item_
1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .002 .490 .295 .401

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
.733 1 .402 .181 .225 .111
Correlation
item_
2 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .005 .224 .128 .457

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
.435 .402 1 .365 .125 .283
Correlation
item_
3 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .005 .012 .402 .054

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.103 .181 .365 1 .125 .133
Correlation
item_
4 Sig. (2-tailed) .490 .224 .012 .402 .371

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.156 .225 .125 .125 1 .319
Correlation
item_
5 Sig. (2-tailed) .295 .128 .402 .402 .029

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

item_ Pearson *
.125 .111 .283 .133 .319 1
6 Correlation
 Sig. (2-tailed) .401 .457 .054 .371 .029

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.341 .308 .153 .234 .317 .213
Correlation
item_
7 Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .035 .303 .114 .030 .150

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.307 .340 .151 .194 .284 .357
Correlation
item_
8 Sig. (2-tailed) .036 .020 .312 .191 .053 .014

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** **
.343 .347 .242 .397 .432 .235
Correlation
item_
9 Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .017 .101 .006 .002 .111

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** * **
.339 .339 .381 .293 .404 .278
Correlation
item_
10 Sig. (2-tailed) .020 .020 .008 .046 .005 .058

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** * *
.281 .174 .412 .365 .307 .175
Correlation
item_
11 Sig. (2-tailed) .055 .243 .004 .012 .036 .238

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

7 8 9 10 11 12
 Pearson ** **
.341 .307 .343 .339 .281 .267
Correlation
item_
1 Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .036 .018 .020 .055 .069

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
.308 .340 .347 .339 .174 .261
Correlation
item_
2 Sig. (2-tailed) .035 .020 .017 .020 .243 .077

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
.153 .151 .242 .381 .412 -.107
Correlation
item_
3 Sig. (2-tailed) .303 .312 .101 .008 .004 .474

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.234 .194 .397 .293 .365 -.057
Correlation
item_
4 Sig. (2-tailed) .114 .191 .006 .046 .012 .705

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.317 .284 .432 .404 .307 .263
Correlation
item_
5 Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .053 .002 .005 .036 .074

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.213 .357 .235 .278 .175 .179
Correlation
item_
6 Sig. (2-tailed) .150 .014 .111 .058 .238 .229

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
1 .471 .659 .242 .178 .330
item_ Correlation
7
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .102 .230 .023
 N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.471 1 .498 .173 .030 .084
Correlation
item_
8 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .244 .844 .576

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** **
.659 .498 1 .426 .243 .418
Correlation
item_
9 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .003 .100 .003

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** * **
.242 .173 .426 1 .392 .189
Correlation
item_
10 Sig. (2-tailed) .102 .244 .003 .006 .203

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** * *
.178 .030 .243 .392 1 .137
Correlation
item_
11 Sig. (2-tailed) .230 .844 .100 .006 .359

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ Item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

13 14 15 16 17 18

Pearson ** **
.175 .292 .191 .397 -.190 .034
Correlation
item_
1 Sig. (2-tailed) .240 .047 .199 .006 .200 .821

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

item_ Pearson ** **
.160 .322 .213 .293 -.132 .044
2 Correlation
 Sig. (2-tailed) .284 .027 .151 .046 .378 .769

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
.048 .134 .268 .302 .228 .368
Correlation
item_
3 Sig. (2-tailed) .747 .369 .068 .039 .123 .011

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
-.007 .353 .268 .115 .328 .237
Correlation
item_
4 Sig. (2-tailed) .962 .015 .068 .441 .025 .108

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.237 .011 -.122 .216 .062 .157
Correlation
item_
5 Sig. (2-tailed) .109 .943 .416 .144 .681 .292

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.054 .148 -.046 .262 .147 .246
Correlation
item_
6 Sig. (2-tailed) .720 .320 .757 .075 .324 .096

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.056 .357 .002 -.012 .031 .223
Correlation
item_
7 Sig. (2-tailed) .707 .014 .990 .934 .837 .133

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.301 .424 .083 .300 -.073 .041
Correlation
item_
8 Sig. (2-tailed) .040 .003 .579 .040 .624 .783

N 47 47 47 47 47 47
 Pearson * * ** **
.362 .403 -.063 .159 .181 .287
Correlation
item_
9 Sig. (2-tailed) .013 .005 .675 .285 .224 .050

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** * **
.250 .151 -.061 .328 .182 .124
Correlation
item_
10 Sig. (2-tailed) .090 .311 .683 .024 .221 .408

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** * *
.014 .335 .224 .223 .289 .300
Correlation
item_
11 Sig. (2-tailed) .923 .021 .131 .132 .049 .041

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

19 20 21 22 23 24

Pearson ** **
.245 .429 .283 .429 .244 .063
Correlation
item_
1 Sig. (2-tailed) .097 .003 .054 .003 .099 .674

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
.173 .324 .082 .473 .323 .211
Correlation
item_
2 Sig. (2-tailed) .245 .026 .585 .001 .027 .155

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
-.023 .283 -.181 .224 .362 .406
item_ Correlation
3
Sig. (2-tailed) .877 .054 .222 .131 .012 .005
 N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
-.023 .138 -.130 .224 .308 .352
Correlation
item_
4 Sig. (2-tailed) .877 .353 .385 .131 .035 .015

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.284 .252 -.101 .078 .299 .204
Correlation
item_
5 Sig. (2-tailed) .053 .088 .501 .601 .041 .168

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.282 .296 .112 .178 .200 .211
Correlation
item_
6 Sig. (2-tailed) .055 .043 .454 .232 .177 .155

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.320 .016 .031 .304 .204 .146
Correlation
item_
7 Sig. (2-tailed) .028 .917 .835 .038 .170 .328

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.444 .334 .072 .343 .400 .076
Correlation
item_
8 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .022 .630 .018 .005 .613

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** **
.459 .186 .151 .354 .422 .159
Correlation
item_
9 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .211 .311 .015 .003 .287

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

item_ Pearson * * ** * **
.173 .328 .108 .122 .324 .320
10 Correlation
 Sig. (2-tailed) .244 .024 .470 .416 .027 .028

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** * *
-.113 .250 -.031 .208 .166 .324
Correlation
item_
11 Sig. (2-tailed) .449 .090 .838 .162 .265 .026

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_25 item_26 total

** **
Pearson Correlation -.001 -.110 .567

item_1 Sig. (2-tailed) .992 .460 .000

N 47 47 47

** **
Pearson Correlation .233 .038 .584

item_2 Sig. (2-tailed) .115 .801 .000

N 47 47 47

** **
Pearson Correlation -.035 .173 .502

item_3 Sig. (2-tailed) .817 .245 .000

N 47 47 47

*
Pearson Correlation .013 .220 .445

item_4 Sig. (2-tailed) .929 .137 .002

N 47 47 47

Pearson Correlation .187 .434 .483

item_5 Sig. (2-tailed) .207 .002 .001

N 47 47 47
 Pearson Correlation .154 .136 .458

item_6 Sig. (2-tailed) .302 .362 .001

N 47 47 47

* *
Pearson Correlation .110 .096 .521

item_7 Sig. (2-tailed) .460 .522 .000

N 47 47 47

* *
Pearson Correlation .068 .080 .552

item_8 Sig. (2-tailed) .652 .595 .000

N 47 47 47

* *
Pearson Correlation .163 .247 .695

item_9 Sig. (2-tailed) .274 .094 .000

N 47 47 47

* * **
Pearson Correlation .352 .138 .576

item_10 Sig. (2-tailed) .015 .355 .000

N 47 47 47

**
Pearson Correlation .071 .149 .482

item_11 Sig. (2-tailed) .635 .316 .001

N 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pearson ** **
.267 .261 -.107 -.057 .263 .179
item_ Correlation
12
Sig. (2-tailed) .069 .077 .474 .705 .074 .229
 N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
.175 .160 .048 -.007 .237 .054
Correlation
item_
13 Sig. (2-tailed) .240 .284 .747 .962 .109 .720

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
.292 .322 .134 .353 .011 .148
Correlation
Item_
14 Sig. (2-tailed) .047 .027 .369 .015 .943 .320

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.191 .213 .268 .268 -.122 -.046
Correlation
item_
15 Sig. (2-tailed) .199 .151 .068 .068 .416 .757

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.397 .293 .302 .115 .216 .262
Correlation
item_
16 Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .046 .039 .441 .144 .075

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
-.190 -.132 .228 .328 .062 .147
Correlation
item_
17 Sig. (2-tailed) .200 .378 .123 .025 .681 .324

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.034 .044 .368 .237 .157 .246
Correlation
item_
18 Sig. (2-tailed) .821 .769 .011 .108 .292 .096

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

item_ Pearson * * *
.245 .173 -.023 -.023 .284 .282
19 Correlation
 Sig. (2-tailed) .097 .245 .877 .877 .053 .055

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** **
.429 .324 .283 .138 .252 .296
Correlation
item_
20 Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .026 .054 .353 .088 .043

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** * **
.283 .082 -.181 -.130 -.101 .112
Correlation
item_
21 Sig. (2-tailed) .054 .585 .222 .385 .501 .454

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** * *
.429 .473 .224 .224 .078 .178
Correlation
item_
22 Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .001 .131 .131 .601 .232

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

7 8 9 10 11 12

Pearson ** **
.330 .084 .418 .189 .137 1
Correlation
item_
12 Sig. (2-tailed) .023 .576 .003 .203 .359

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
.056 .301 .362 .250 .014 .089
Correlation
item_
13 Sig. (2-tailed) .707 .040 .013 .090 .923 .551

N 47 47 47 47 47 47
 Pearson ** ** *
.357 .424 .403 .151 .335 .288
Correlation
Item_
14 Sig. (2-tailed) .014 .003 .005 .311 .021 .049

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.002 .083 -.063 -.061 .224 .011
Correlation
item_
15 Sig. (2-tailed) .990 .579 .675 .683 .131 .941

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
-.012 .300 .159 .328 .223 .130
Correlation
item_
16 Sig. (2-tailed) .934 .040 .285 .024 .132 .382

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.031 -.073 .181 .182 .289 .051
Correlation
item_
17 Sig. (2-tailed) .837 .624 .224 .221 .049 .735

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.223 .041 .287 .124 .300 .039
Correlation
item_
18 Sig. (2-tailed) .133 .783 .050 .408 .041 .796

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.320 .444 .459 .173 -.113 .311
Correlation
item_
19 Sig. (2-tailed) .028 .002 .001 .244 .449 .033

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** **
.016 .334 .186 .328 .250 .162
item_ Correlation
20
Sig. (2-tailed) .917 .022 .211 .024 .090 .278
 N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** * **
.031 .072 .151 .108 -.031 .333
Correlation
item_
21 Sig. (2-tailed) .835 .630 .311 .470 .838 .022

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** * *
.304 .343 .354 .122 .208 .296
Correlation
item_
22 Sig. (2-tailed) .038 .018 .015 .416 .162 .043

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ Item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

13 14 15 16 17 18

Pearson ** **
.089 .288 .011 .130 .051 .039
Correlation
item_
12 Sig. (2-tailed) .551 .049 .941 .382 .735 .796

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
1 .275 .053 .099 -.087 .126
Correlation
item_
13 Sig. (2-tailed) .061 .722 .508 .559 .398

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
.275 1 .222 .208 .148 .049
Correlation
Item_
14 Sig. (2-tailed) .061 .133 .160 .322 .743

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

item_ Pearson *
.053 .222 1 .366 .247 .160
15 Correlation
 Sig. (2-tailed) .722 .133 .011 .095 .282

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.099 .208 .366 1 .163 .115
Correlation
item_
16 Sig. (2-tailed) .508 .160 .011 .274 .443

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
-.087 .148 .247 .163 1 .504
Correlation
item_
17 Sig. (2-tailed) .559 .322 .095 .274 .000

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.126 .049 .160 .115 .504 1
Correlation
item_
18 Sig. (2-tailed) .398 .743 .282 .443 .000

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.551 .293 .083 .195 .152 .238
Correlation
item_
19 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .046 .579 .189 .309 .107

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** **
.086 .240 .333 .981 .132 .074
Correlation
item_
20 Sig. (2-tailed) .568 .104 .022 .000 .377 .623

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** * **
.268 .520 -.069 .202 .120 .003
Correlation
item_
21 Sig. (2-tailed) .069 .000 .643 .172 .423 .982

N 47 47 47 47 47 47
 Pearson ** * *
.143 .468 .239 .329 -.024 .416
Correlation
item_
22 Sig. (2-tailed) .337 .001 .105 .024 .874 .004

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

19 20 21 22 23 24

Pearson ** **
.311 .162 .333 .296 .062 .019
Correlation
item_
12 Sig. (2-tailed) .033 .278 .022 .043 .678 .899

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
.551 .086 .268 .143 .328 .177
Correlation
item_
13 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .568 .069 .337 .025 .234

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
.293 .240 .520 .468 .219 .259
Correlation
Item_
14 Sig. (2-tailed) .046 .104 .000 .001 .140 .079

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.083 .333 -.069 .239 .215 .129
Correlation
item_
15 Sig. (2-tailed) .579 .022 .643 .105 .146 .389

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.195 .981 .202 .329 .255 .213
item_ Correlation
16
Sig. (2-tailed) .189 .000 .172 .024 .084 .151
 N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.152 .132 .120 -.024 .096 .219
Correlation
item_
17 Sig. (2-tailed) .309 .377 .423 .874 .519 .139

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
.238 .074 .003 .416 .301 .167
Correlation
item_
18 Sig. (2-tailed) .107 .623 .982 .004 .040 .261

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * *
1 .225 .383 .271 .278 .076
Correlation
item_
19 Sig. (2-tailed) .128 .008 .066 .058 .613

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** **
.225 1 .233 .324 .240 .199
Correlation
item_
20 Sig. (2-tailed) .128 .115 .026 .104 .179

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson * * ** * **
.383 .233 1 .278 -.035 .030
Correlation
item_
21 Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .115 .058 .815 .842

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** * *
.271 .324 .278 1 .416 .068
Correlation
item_
22 Sig. (2-tailed) .066 .026 .058 .004 .651

N 47 47 47 47 47 47
 Correlations

item_25 item_26 total

** **
Pearson Correlation .187 -.044 .397

item_12 Sig. (2-tailed) .207 .770 .006

N 47 47 47

** **
Pearson Correlation .390 .178 .419

item_13 Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .230 .003

N 47 47 47

** **
Pearson Correlation .227 .019 .594

Item_14 Sig. (2-tailed) .125 .899 .000

N 47 47 47

*
Pearson Correlation .036 .110 .334

item_15 Sig. (2-tailed) .808 .462 .022

N 47 47 47

Pearson Correlation -.005 .123 .558

item_16 Sig. (2-tailed) .974 .408 .000

N 47 47 47

Pearson Correlation -.070 .236 .305

item_17 Sig. (2-tailed) .638 .110 .037

N 47 47 47

* *
Pearson Correlation -.008 .168 .429

item_18 Sig. (2-tailed) .959 .258 .003

N 47 47 47

* *
item_19 Pearson Correlation .212 .115 .534
 Sig. (2-tailed) .152 .441 .000

N 47 47 47

* *
Pearson Correlation .020 .116 .578

item_20 Sig. (2-tailed) .896 .438 .000

N 47 47 47

* * **
Pearson Correlation .127 -.138 .297

item_21 Sig. (2-tailed) .395 .356 .043

N 47 47 47

**
Pearson Correlation .068 -.065 .581

item_22 Sig. (2-tailed) .648 .665 .000

N 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pearson ** **
.244 .323 .362 .308 .299 .200
Correlation
item_
23 Sig. (2-tailed) .099 .027 .012 .035 .041 .177

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
.063 .211 .406 .352 .204 .211
Correlation
item_
24 Sig. (2-tailed) .674 .155 .005 .015 .168 .155

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
-.001 .233 -.035 .013 .187 .154
item_ Correlation
25
Sig. (2-tailed) .992 .115 .817 .929 .207 .302
 N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
-.110 .038 .173 .220 .434 .136
Correlation
item_
26 Sig. (2-tailed) .460 .801 .245 .137 .002 .362

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.567 .584 .502 .445 .483 .458
Correlation

total
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .002 .001 .001

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

7 8 9 10 11 12

Pearson ** **
.204 .400 .422 .324 .166 .062
Correlation
item_
23 Sig. (2-tailed) .170 .005 .003 .027 .265 .678

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
.146 .076 .159 .320 .324 .019
Correlation
item_
24 Sig. (2-tailed) .328 .613 .287 .028 .026 .899

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
.110 .068 .163 .352 .071 .187
Correlation
item_
25 Sig. (2-tailed) .460 .652 .274 .015 .635 .207

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

item_ Pearson *
.096 .080 .247 .138 .149 -.044
26 Correlation
 Sig. (2-tailed) .522 .595 .094 .355 .316 .770

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.521 .552 .695 .576 .482 .397
Correlation

total
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .006

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ Item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

13 14 15 16 17 18

Pearson ** **
.328 .219 .215 .255 .096 .301
Correlation
item_
23 Sig. (2-tailed) .025 .140 .146 .084 .519 .040

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
.177 .259 .129 .213 .219 .167
Correlation
item_
24 Sig. (2-tailed) .234 .079 .389 .151 .139 .261

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
.390 .227 .036 -.005 -.070 -.008
Correlation
item_
25 Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .125 .808 .974 .638 .959

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.178 .019 .110 .123 .236 .168
Correlation
item_
26 Sig. (2-tailed) .230 .899 .462 .408 .110 .258

N 47 47 47 47 47 47
 Pearson *
.419 .594 .334 .558 .305 .429
Correlation

total
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000 .022 .000 .037 .003

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_ item_ item_ item_ item_ item_

19 20 21 22 23 24

Pearson ** **
.278 .240 -.035 .416 1 .217
Correlation
item_
23 Sig. (2-tailed) .058 .104 .815 .004 .142

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** **
.076 .199 .030 .068 .217 1
Correlation
item_
24 Sig. (2-tailed) .613 .179 .842 .651 .142

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson ** ** *
.212 .020 .127 .068 .081 .359
Correlation
item_
25 Sig. (2-tailed) .152 .896 .395 .648 .587 .013

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.115 .116 -.138 -.065 .259 .166
Correlation
item_
26 Sig. (2-tailed) .441 .438 .356 .665 .079 .264

N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Pearson *
.534 .578 .297 .581 .565 .445
Correlation
total

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .043 .000 .000 .002

 N 47 47 47 47 47 47

Correlations

item_25 item_26 total

** **
Pearson Correlation .081 .259 .565

item_23 Sig. (2-tailed) .587 .079 .000

N 47 47 47

** **
Pearson Correlation .359 .166 .445

item_24 Sig. (2-tailed) .013 .264 .002

N 47 47 47

** **
Pearson Correlation 1 .025 .313

item_25 Sig. (2-tailed) .867 .032

N 47 47 47

*
Pearson Correlation .025 1 .298

item_26 Sig. (2-tailed) .867 .042

N 47 47 47

Pearson Correlation .313 .298 1

Total Sig. (2-tailed) .032 .042

N 47 47 47

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

 DAFTAR NILAI SKK

Nama : Isnaini Nailil Farih

NIM : 113-14-074

Jurusan : Tadris Bahasa Inggris

Fakultas : Tarbiyah dan Ilmu Keguruan

No. Jenis Kegiatan Pelaksanaan Keterangan Skor

1. Orientasi Pengenalan Akademik dan 18-19 Agustus Peserta 3
Kemahasiswaan (OPAK) dengan tema 2014
“Aktualisasi Gerakan Mahasiswa
yang Beretika, Disiplin, dan Berfikir
Terbuka”
2. Orientasi Pengenalan Akademik dan 20-21 Agustus Peserta 3
Kemahasiswaan (OPAK) Jurusan 2014
Tarbiyah dengan tema “Aktualisasi
Pendidikan Karakter Sebagai
Pembentuk Generasi Yang Religious,
Educative, Dan Humanis”
3. Orientasi Dasar KeIslaman (ODK) 21 Agustus Peserta 2
Dengan Tema “Pemahaman Islam 2014
Rahmatan Lil „Alamin Sebagai
Langkah Aawal Menjadi Mahasiswa
Berkarakter”
4. Achievement Motivation Training 23 Agustus Peserta 2
(AMT) dengan Tema “ Dengan AMT 2014
Semangat Menyongsong Prestasi”
Oleh CEC dan JQH
5. Library User Education (Pendidikan 28 Agustus Peserta 2
 Pemustaka) Oleh UPT Perpustakaan 2014
STAIN Salatiga
6. “SIBA – SIBI” Training UTS 24 – 25 Peserta 3
Semester Ganjil Tahun 2014 oleh Oktober 2014
CEC dan ITTAQO
7. “Training Personality Plus Regional 23 November Peserta 2
Jawa Tengah” Oleh Karima Learning 2014
and Training Center“Training
Personality Plus Regional Jawa
Tengah” Oleh Karima Learning and
Training Center
8. Seminar Nasional “ Perlindungan 26 november Peserta 8
hokum terhadap usaha mikro 2014
mengahadapi pasar bebas ASEAN”
oleh HMPS-AS IAIN Salatiga
9. “Study Club” Oleh CEC IAIN 7 Desember Peserta 2
Salatiga 2014
10. “ SIBA-SIBI” Training Uas semester 19-20 Peserta 3
ganjil” Oleh CEC dan ITTAQO IAIN desember
Salatiga 2014
11 Seminar “Harmonisasi Lingkungan” 27 Desember Peserta 2
Oleh Mapala MITAPASA IAIN 2014
Salatiga
12. International Seminar “ ASEAN 28 Februari Peserta 8
Economic Community 2015; 2015
Prospects and challenges for Islamic
Higher Education” oleh IAIN Salatiga
13 “SIBA-SIBI” Training UTS semester 17-18 April Peserta 3
genap oleh CEC dan ITTAQO IAIN 2015
Salatiga
14 Seminar Hari Hak Untuk Tahu dengan 22 September Peserta 2
tema “Hak Untuk Sebagai Basis 2015
Penguatan Masyarakat Sipil” oleh
Komisi Informasi Provinsi Jawa
Tengah dengan Fakultas Dakwah
IAIN Salatiga
15. Seminar Nasional “ Dimanakah Kiblat 9 November Peserta 8
Pendidikan kita?” oleh Dema FTIK 2015
16 Seminar Nasional “ Peran Media 19 November Peserta 8
Massa terhadap Kelestarian 2015
lingkungan hidup” Oleh HMJ KPI
IAIN Salatiga
17. Seminar Nasional “ Musik, Islam dan 5 Desember Peserta 8
Nusantara” oleh SMC 2015
18. Scholarship Guideline Seminar oleh 28 desember Peserta 2
FTIK dan KKI 2015
19. “Bimbingan Muqri‟Yanbu‟a” oleh 14 Februari Peserta 2
Pon. Pes. “BUSTANU USYSYAQIL 2016
QUR‟AN”
20. Seminar Nasional “ Memperkuat 26 April 2016 Peserta 8
peran pemuda dalam meningkatkan
ekonomi nasional melalui
kewirausahaan” oleh Kopma
“Fatawa” IAIN Salatiga
21 “Agama Baha‟I dalam lintasan sejarah 26 April 2016 Peserta 2
di jawa tengah” Oleh Fakultas
Syari‟ah
22. “Sosialisasi regulasi terkait kerukunan 30 Mei 2016 Peserta 2
umat Beragama kepada mahasiswa”
Oleh Kepala pusat kerukunan umat
 beragama
23. In Art and Language Exhibition 2017 26 April 2017 Peserta 2
“Kidung Katresnan Dewi Arimbi”
Oleh International Class program
IAIN Salatiga
24. Apresiasi dan Talkshow Literasi 12 Oktober Peserta 2
dengan tema “Baca Saja Dulu Nanti 2017
Juga Paham” oleh Rumah Literasi
Pojok Buku
25. TOEFL Prediction Test Of Unit 28 Oktober Peserta 2
Pelaksana Teknis dan Pengembangan 2017
Bahasa (UPTPB) IAIN Salatiga
26. Seminar Nasional “ Keaktualisasi 18 November Peserta 8
cantik dhohir dan batin dalam 2017
kacamata islam” Oleh LDK IAIN
Salatiga
27. Seminar “Katanya cinta, kok 4 April 2018 Peserta 2
disakitin? Cinta itu kasih, bukan
menyakiti” Oleh Kaprodi Hubungan
International UKSW
28. Seminar Nasional “ Literasi Media di 26 April 2018 Peserta 8
Kalangan Pelajar dan Mahasiswa”
oleh KPID Jawa Tengah dan KM
Semar
29. Seminar “ Merajut Ukhuwah 13 Mei 2018 Peserta 2
wathoniyah dan basyariyah dalam
persepektif Islam” Oleh Kiswah
Komunitas Diskusi Mahasiswa Ilmiah
30. “Workshop Safety Riding” Oleh 14 Mei 2018 Peserta 2
“Dema IAIN Salatiga”
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Nama : Isnaini Nailil Farih

Place of Birth : Kab. Semarang

Date of Birth : January, 6th 1996

Sex : Female

Religion : Islam

Address : Kaliwaru Tengaran RT 24/ RW 05, Kec. Tengaran,

Kab.Semarang.

E-mail : nafarih882@gmail.com

Phone Number : 085867199905

Education :

1. 2002-2008: MI Tengaran

2. 2008- 2011: Mts N Salatiga

3. 2011-2014: MAPK MAN 1 Surakarta

4. 2014-2018: IAIN SALATIGA