• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Outside Classroom Language Learning in Indonesia - A Project Paper

Outside Classroom Language Learning in Indonesia - A Project Paper






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.


11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • thank you!
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Outside Classroom Language Learning in Indonesia - A Project Paper Outside Classroom Language Learning in Indonesia - A Project Paper Document Transcript

    • TABLE OF CONTENT1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….. 1 1.1. Background ……………………………………………………………... 2 1.2. Statement of Problem …………………………………………………..…. 4 1.3. Purpose of Study ……………………………………………………….…. 4 1.4. Research Objective …………………………………………………….…. 5 1.5. Research Questions …………………………………………………….…. 5 1.6. The Scope of Research ………………………………………………….…6 1.7. Significance of Study ……………………………………………………... 72. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………....... 8 2.1. Theoretical Framework ………………………………………………….... 8 2.2. Studies on Out-of-class Language Learning Activities …………………... 10 2.3. Out-of-class Language Learning Activities in Indonesia…………………. 11 2.4. Studies on Factors that Influence OCLLA ………………………………...12 2.5. Studies on Correlation between OCLLA and L2 Achievement…………... 12 2.6. Studies on OCLLA across Three Different Levels of Achievement……… 13 2.7. Intervening Variables……………………………………………………… 153. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………. 16 3.1. Population ………………………………………………………………… 17 3.2. Research Design …………………………………………………………...17 3.3. Instruments ………………………………………………………………... 18 3.4. Reliability and Validity …………………………………………………… 20 3.5. Data Collection Procedures ………………………………………………..21 3.6. Conceptual and Operational Definitions …………………………………. 22 3.7. Data Analysis …………………………………………………………...… 23 3.8. Ethics ……………………………………………………………………....254. RESULT AN DISCUSSIONS…………………………………………………… 26 4.1. The Most Frequent OCLLA Employed by the Participants …………..….. 26 4.1.1. Listening ………………………………………………………… 28 4.1.2. Reading ………………………………………………………...... 31 4.1.3. Speaking ………………………………………...................……. 33 4.1.4. Writing …………………………………………………………... 34 4.2. The Correlation between OCLLA and L2 Achievement ……………….… 35 2
    • 4.3.OCLLA across three different levels of L2 Achievement ……...…………. 36 4.3.1. Grade C ………………………………………………………….. 37 4.3.2. Grade B ……………………………………………………..…… 39 4.3.3. Grade A ……………………………………………………….…. 405. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ……………………………….... 436. CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………. 43REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….. 45APPENDIX A: Letter of Authenticity ……………………………………………….... 48APPENDIX B: Questionnaire ………………………………………………………….49APPENDIX C: Semi-structured interview questions ………………………………… 50APPENDIX D: Excerpt from English National Examination 2010/2011 …………….. 51APPENDIX E: OCLLA employed by students with a low score in the exam ……....... 54APPENDIX F: OCLLA employed by students with an average score in the exam …... 55APPENDIX G: OCLLA employed by students with a high in the exam …………...… 56APPENDIX H: EXCERPT FROM AN INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION ………….. 57APPENDIX I: EXAMPLE OF DAILY ACTIVITY JOURNAL …………………...… 60 3
    • OUT-OF-CLASS LANGUAGE LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND STUDENTS’ L2 ACHIEVEMENT: A CASE STUDY OF INDONESIAN STUDENTS IN A SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL, BANDUNG, INDONESIA. ABSTRACT This study describesprevalent out-of-class language learning activities employed by 59 senior high school students in Bandung. It specificallyexamines whether there is a link between these activities to their L2 achievement in class.Using both the quantitative and qualitative approach, the study finds that the most popular activities are receptive skills of listening and reading, indicating that these Indonesian students are largely passive learners of English. Analysis of the questionnaire data reveals that there is a correlation between these activities and how they perform in the class. The study also investigates language learning activities beyond the classroom that are employed by three different groups of leaners: those with poor, mediocre, and high scores.1.IntroductionIn response tothe increasing global needs of people to use English, most schools in Asia includeEnglish as a compulsory subject in schools. In Indonesia, Englishis a compulsory subjectthatstudents must take ever since they enter their elementary school. However, for these EFLstudents, learning English could be a challenge since what they learn in the classroom could notbe applied and used for practice outside the class. The focus of English teaching in the class islargely on language structures. Very little attention is given to communicative competence whichwould be needed when learners engage in conversations outside the class. 4
    • A widely held view on language acquisition is that learning is most effective when thereis a combination of form-focused instruction and optimal exposure to the language (Brown,2007). The former entails the nuts and bolts of language in the form of teacher‟s instruction,while the latter involves rich comprehensible input either from the teacher in the class or othersources available beyond the class (Benson and Reinders, 2011). Since teachers in EFLcontextsusually use English very minimally and often with poor command of English in theclass,out-of-class sources such as books, songs, and internet could be a rich and invaluable inputfor learners to pick up the language from (Lamb, 2002). However, as invaluable as it might be,studies on language learning beyond the classroom are scarce. Much more is known on howlanguage is learned in the classroom than how it is learned outside (Pearson, 2003).1.1. BackgroundIn the field of Second Language Learning, Learner autonomy is described as a condition of alearner having the ability to control their own learning, often outside the direction ofconventional language learning in the classroom (Benson, 2011). One of the characteristics ofautonomous learners is the willingness to seek the opportunities of and partake in languagelearning activities outside the classroom, which can include (but are not exclusive to) watchingmovies, listening to the radio, reading extra materials, or practicing with friends and fellowstudents (Chausanachoti, 2009). Various studies have defined Out-of-class Language Learning Activities (OCLLA) as anynon-assignment,self-directed, language learning activities that are performed outside the class, beit for the sake of learning the language itself or for pure pleasure (Chausanachoti, 2009; Pearson, 5
    • 2004; Benson, 2011).However, studies indicate that there has been inconsistency in wording theterm; different authors use slightly different word.For example,Benson (2011) uses out-of-classlearning,Hydra (2004) and Chausanachoti (2009) use „out-of-class language activity‟, Al-Otaibi(2004) prefers to use „out-of-class language practice‟, and Anderson (2004) chooses „out-of-class language use‟. Pickard (1996), in particular, uses „out-of-class Language LearningStrategy” for the same definition. A closer look at the meaning of “Learning Strategy” revealsthat it is a method employed in performing specific learning tasks such as the use of synthesis oflearning materials in problem solving activities (cognitive), and self-regulation in languagelearning (meta-cognitive), all of which capture the essence of conscious behaviors (Ellis, 1997;Brown, 2007). MacIntyre(as cited in Al-Otaibi, 2004) succinctly explains that learning strategyis a conscious behavior that learners use as a plan or tactic towards success in language learning.As such, this study was not an attempt to investigateconscious learning strategies employedoutside the class, rather it aims to describe and quantify out-of-class language learning activities(e.g. reading novels, watching movies, and so on) whether done with or without a consciouseffort to learn English. These out-of-class language learning activities have been considered as a significantcontributor to second language proficiency (Lamb, 2002; Pearson, 2004) and achievement(Lamb, 2002). However, there is a dearth of research in this area, particularly in EFL contexts(Benson, 2011; Benson and Reinders, 2011). In order to enrich the field, this study takes bothqualitative and quantitative approach by examining a cohort of Indonesian high school students. 6
    • 1.2. Statement of ProblemStudies on OCLLA have largelybeen focusing on the identification and quantification of theseout-of-class activities such as those done by Pickard (1996), Pearson (2004), Hyland (2004), Al-Otaibi(2004) and Chausanachoti (2009). There have not been many studies done to accuratelydescribe howOCLLA impacts on language learning, particularly in the EFL contexts inIndonesia. Lamb (2002) conducted a small-scale pilot study of learning behavior and L2achievement of 16 Indonesian university students in a provincial area in Indonesia. Such a small-scale study needs further investigation. Therefore, this study attempts to extend and enrichLamb‟s study by employing a mixed method of research design.1.3. Purpose of StudyThe overall purpose of this study is to investigate out-of-class language learning activities carriedout by Indonesian high school learners in one particular high school in Bandung, Indonesia. Theoverriding aim of this study is to identify, classify, and quantify these activities and how they arelinked to learners‟ English achievement in the class. This study also attempts to examine howdifferent groups of learners (grade A, grade B, and grade C) learn English outside the class. 7
    • 1.4. Research ObjectiveThe study focuses on out-of-class EFL learning condition in Indonesia and its link to learners‟L2 achievement in the class. Specifically, it aims to achieve the following goals: a. to identify out-of-class language learning activities of second-yearIndonesian high school learners in a particular school, b. to find a correlation between out-of-class language learning activities and their English achievement, c. todiscover language learning activities among three different levels of English achievement (high, mid, and low).1.5. Research QuestionsGenerally, this study addresses one question: How do Indonesian high school learners engage inout-of-class language learningactivities (OCLLA)? Specifically, itattempts to seek answers to thefollowing questions: 1. What are the most frequently used out-of-class language learning activities employed by senior high Indonesian students outside the class? 2. What is the correlation between students‟ English achievement and the language activities they do outside the class? 3. What are some of the language learning activities employed by students who have high, mediocre, and poor English scores? 8
    • 1.6. The Scope of ResearchThis study investigates out-of-class language learning activities employed by 59second yearsenior high school students, aged 17-18 years old, in one particular school in Bandung,Indonesia. Thus, cautions should be taken when attempting to make generalizations of thefindings toother senior high school students in a different school, in a larger population. The data covers findings from January to February 2012, during which the researcher wasable to obtain students‟ latest English score obtained from the standardized national examination.To fit the purpose of this study, only this particular English score was used to correlate with thefrequency of their out-of-class language learning activities. The test measures students‟achievement (what they have learned in the class) as opposed to their English proficiency(general ability of English). The study limits itself to this particular English achievement becauseit has been used as a standard measurement in the country to decide whether students pass or failduring their study in high school. It should also be noted that the correlation between their L2 achievement and out-of-classactivities is not used to gauge or identify a nomothetic causal relationship between the two. Withthis purpose in mind, this study does not seek to look at other variables that might influencestudents‟ English achievement such as learners‟ motivation, learning style, aptitude, gender, andteacher‟s competence. 9
    • 1.7. Significance of StudyThis study was conducted in Indonesian EFL environment in the hope that it would give teachersin that particular environment a valuable insight of how their learners engage in languagelearning activities outside the class and, more importantly, how these activities contribute tolearners‟ overall English achievement. By suggesting how learners from three differentachievement levels (high, mid, low) approach their language learning, teachers may provide amodel for their learners of how successful language learners, (i.e., those in the higherachievement level) learn English. Although this is a descriptive study of out-of-class language learning activities inBandung, Indonesia, its implication could be extended beyond this specific context.This studywould hopefully be of benefits to Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers as it providessome insight into how L2 achievement contributes to learners‟ engagement to out-of-classEnglish language learning activities. In particular, this study is hoped to enrichthe literature oflearner autonomy as OCLLA itself falls within this specific field (Chausanachoti, 2009). In thisfashion, learner autonomy fitswithin Indonesia‟s current approach in senior high education calledSKBK (SistemKurikulumBerbasisKompetensi or Competency-based Instruction) whichprimarily aims to develop learner‟s competence by having learners take an active role inlearning. Curriculum designers could then make use of the findings in this study to integrate,incorporate, and modify the current curriculum to include out-of-class language learning as anintegral component in SKBK. 10
    • 2.Literature ReviewThis section reviews what researchers have done on the area of out-of-class language learningactivities. The section starts with the theoretical framework that is used to govern this study, itthen looks at the previous studies done on OCLLA and closes with intervening variables thatmight affect the findings in this study. The content organization of the literature logically followsa chronological order of the research questions used in this study.2.1. Theoretical frameworkIn order to identify the type of activities that learners engage in outside the class, this study usesa theoretical framework from Benson (2011: 76) which classifies the activities into three broadcategories: a. Self-instruction: Activities stemmed from learner‟s conscious effort to seek out resources of language learning activities by himself, without intervention from teachers or English native speakers. Suchactivities includestudying grammar books or doing vocabulary exercises in textbooks. This deliberate effort to master a particular language skill may also involve studying English in the classroom. However, the study focuses more on those activities employed outside the class. Activities that fall into self-instruction may also be viewed as occupying various positions in a continuum. On one extreme end, there is an episodic, short-term learning.On the other extreme end of the continuum, there is an autonomous learning, which is a stronger sense of self-instructionthat involves long-term self-initiated learning. In order to measure self-instruction as used by the participants, a learning journal was used to observe how often the participants do these activates. 11
    • b. Naturalistic learning: These are involuntary activities where learners engage in social activities by interacting with others in English such as conversing with a native speaker on the street. Naturalistic learning is normally used to refer to a language learning activity where leaners have a direct communication with users of the target language, such as those in ESL situations where learners live and communicate with the people who speak the language. Naturalistic learning in this study limits its scope to activities that involve direct communication with either native or non-native speakers as the opportunity to do these activities arises. Both a questionnaire and learning journal were used to investigate the extent of learners‟ engagement to naturalistic learning. c. Self-directed naturalistic learning: Self-imposed activities which learners do with the intention of learning English but with more focus ondoing it for pleasure rather than for the sake of language learning. Such activities include reading novels, playing video games, watching movies, listening to songs, etc. This last type of out-of-class language learning forms the focal focus of this study. The questionnaire was exclusively used to gather information for this particular type of out-of-class language learning. Learner autonomy is an essential concept that cannot be separated from out-of-classlanguage learning. In EFL contexts such as Indonesia, it is “a necessary pre-condition forsuccess in language learning” (Lamb, 2002: 49).It is thus useful to describe which theory oflearner autonomy is used for this particular study. The framework used in this study is that ofBenson‟s (2011) definition of Autonomy. The term is described as learner‟s ability to takecharge of their own learning which involves the engagement to out-of-class language learningactivities. It is not to be confused with the theory of autonomy in second language acquisitionwhere it is defined as learner‟s ability to use automatized bits of language in their attempt to 12
    • communicate personal messages in unrehearsed situation (Littlewood, 1996, as cited in Benson,2011). In this sense, the study uses the framework of autonomy as being synonymous to learner‟sindependence to the teacher‟s intervention.2.2. Studies on Out-of-class Language Learning ActivitiesOut-of-class language learning activity is a scope of research that has received much attentionand interest over the years. There has been a great consistency of receptive skills (listening andwriting) being the most widely used out-of-class language learning activities (Pickard, 1996;Pearson, 2004; Hyland, 2004; Al-Otaibi, 2004; Chausanachoti, 2009; Marefat and Barbari,2009). Specifically, Pickard (1996) identifies out-of-class language learning employed by 20advanced German learners of English. Survey from the distributed questionnaires reveals thatreceptive skills such as listening to the radioand reading newspapers are among the most popularactivities. Productive skills, such as speaking or writing, are not considered since theopportunities to use them outside the class are severely limited. However, given the smallnumber of sampling, such conclusion should be made cautiously. In EFL contexts, a similar array of activities has also been reported. In Hong Kong,Hyland (2004) notes that passive skills such as reading books, and surfing the net are among themost frequently used out-of-class language learning activities employed by 228 universityEnglish-education students. She argues that a hindrance in speaking English outside the classstems from students‟ fear of negative judgments primarily caused by social or political factorsthere. 106 Chinese students studying English in New Zealand have also been reported ofemploying passive skills as the top five most frequently used OCLLAs (Pearson, 2004). Theseactivities are listening to news on the radio, independent study in the library, reading books, 13
    • watching television programs and listening to the music. According to a study conducted inThailand, browsing the net, reading posters, and watching movies are the top three OCLLAs(Chausanachoti, 2009).A study conducted in Saudi Arabia reveals that passive out-of-classactivities such as watching movies, listening to songs, and reading for pleasure are the mostwidely used by 237 English language learners. The frequency differs somewhat between females(n = 97) and males participants (n = 140), with female showing a higher frequency than the malecounterparts (Al-Ottaibi, 2004). A small-scale study on OCLLA conducted in a closely related,but also quite different, setting in the Middle East reveals that passive skills such as ReadingEnglish booksand listening English news are the most popular out-of-class language learningactivities by 60 Iranian EFL university students (Marefat and Barbari, 2009).2.3. Out-of-class Language LearningActivities in IndonesiaThere havenotbeenmany studies done on OCLLA in Indonesian contexts. However, there is oneinvaluable study conducted by Martin Lamb (2002) who investigated Indonesia‟s poor learningconditions in a provincial area. Building on his previous quantitative research on learningstrategies, this exploratory research aims to look deeper into what enables students to learnEnglish under difficult circumstances. 16 undergraduate students from different facultiesparticipated in the interview. From the analysis, it is revealed that opportunities to use English ina meaningful communication outside the class are exceedingly rare. This might be due to thenegative images constructed by society to those who speak English in public – the same problemfaced by students in Hong Kong (Hyland, 2004). Other possible means for these students to gainaccess to English are through media such as film, newspaper, magazines. Yet, he states that withtheir poor level of English, they could not make sense of these authentic texts, denying the 14
    • comprehensible input needed for their L2 acquisition. The findings need to be consideredcautiously, however, since it pictures only a small scale of population in a remote area ofIndonesia and cannot truly generalize OCLLA used in Indonesia as a whole.2.4. Studies on Factors that Influence OCLLAStudies have indicated that learners choose activities that are intrinsically interesting to them,activities suggested by the teacher which have little relevance or interest to them are not highlyconsidered (Pickard, 1996; Lai and Gu, 2011). Conversely, Al-Ottaibi (2004) argues that theteacher may bear certain influence on students‟ use of OCLLA, especially in Saudi‟s learningenvironment where the teacher plays a dominant role in deciding what students do with theirlearning. As previously mentioned, students might be limited to choose their OCLLA due to thelack of opportunities to use them. Pearson (2004) considers students‟ type of accommodation asa contributing factor towards these opportunities. He comments that students who live inUniversity hostels and houses have little opportunity to interact with others in English, they tendto mix with their friends and chat in L1. On the other hand, accommodation in home-staysprovides students that rare opportunity to interact in English with their English-native-speakinghosts. Other influencing factors include, but not exclusive to, students‟ preferred learning styleand social context (Lamb, 2002; Pearson, 2004; Hyland, 2004). The extent of how much these OCLLA is used is largely determined by learners‟autonomy and motivation (Mori, 2002; Lamb, 2002; Saville and Trioke, 2009). Pearson (2004),in particular, notes that intrinsically motivated students (the desire to learn the language comingfrom one-self, as opposed to external rewards) seem to exert more effort in using the languageoutside. However, he asserts that we cannot make such easy generalization because the nature ofout-of-class language learning is idiosyncratic in a sense that learners spend their time and effort 15
    • outside the class differently. He suggests that teachers should foster learner autonomy in theclassroom to develop learners‟ awareness of such out-of-class language learning activities. In thesame vein, Brown (2007) and Gao (2009) confirm the need for teachers to develop learners‟autonomy by helping learners to look for language practice opportunities beyond the classroom.In other words, learning English in the classroom is only the beginning of the journey towardsthe reality that learners will face outside. In fact, in EFL contexts where the opportunity to useEnglish outside is limited, learner autonomy is “a necessary pre-condition for success inlanguage learning” (Lamb, 2002: 49).2.5. Studies on Correlation between OCLLA and L2 Achievement.It is generally accepted that exposure to the language is essential to language acquisition(Harmer, 2007). The rich exposure that OCLLA brings to learners might as well contribute totheir L2 achievement. Studies have shown a positive correlation between the two. For example,reading for pleasure is reported to have a high correlation with overall language proficiency(Green and Oxford as cited in Brown, 2001). Language gains from extensive reading have alsobeen reported in detail by Renandya (2007) who observes that students exposed to free readinghave more significant growth not only in their reading comprehension but also in wordrecognition and oral sentence repetition compared to those who are not. Similarly, extensivelistening is also reported to be highly beneficial to students‟ L2 improvement (Ucán, 2010).Chausanachoti (2009) provides a comprehensive account of the perceived benefits of OCLLAtowards students‟ L2 proficiency. She notes that listening to songs help improve students‟accuracy of pronunciation. Pearson (2004) considers the use of language computer software in 16
    • self-access centers as a significant contributortowards language proficiency gains, especially forthose in lower proficiency levels. The same positive correlation with OCLLA also extends to language achievement (themeasurement of students‟ performance in the class). Benson and Reinders (2011) note that highmore able students often mention out-of-class language learning as the cause of their high L2achievement in the class. Lamb (2002) also finds that there is a link between what students learnoutside the class and how they perform in the class. However he contends that such opportunityto learn English outside the class is unfortunate for Indonesian EFL students, creating what hecalls a paradox – those who need English most are sadly those with a poor level of English. In discussingthe correlation between OCLLA and L2 achievement, there is always thenotorious chicken-and-egg theoryas identified by Gass and Selinker (1994), and Ellis (1997).This problem of directionality poses a question: which causes which. Is it OCLLA that in thefirst place causes the growth of students‟ L2 achievement in class? Or are learners requiredtopossess a good command of English in order for them to be able to use OCLLA?2.6. Studies on OCLLAacrossThree Different Levels of Achievements.In the discussion of OCLLA across three different achievement levels (high, mid, and low-achieving students), it is suggested that the high-achieving group tend to employ out-of-classlanguage learning more than those in mid or low achieving group (Lamb, 2002; Marefat andBarbari, 2009). Specifically, Marefat and Barbari conclude that although all three groups employreceptive skills, high achieving group tend todo more readingactivities while those in mid andlow achieving group engage more in listening activities. In Lamb‟s study, it is notedthatactivities that do not require students to understand English such as listening to songs, using 17
    • bilingual dictionaries, are chosen mostly by low-achieving group. On the other hand, the use ofauthentic materials such as magazines, novels, and newspaper seem to be favored more by high-achieving group. This seems to indicate that because of their English, high-achieving studentsmight just have the ability to comprehend authentic materials that would otherwise be toodifficult for mid or low-achieving group. In other words, as students‟ level of L2 achievementincrease so do their complexity of OCLLA.2.7. Intervening VariablesOut-of-class language learning activity is just one, among many variables, that could contributeto learners‟ L2 achievement. The intervening variables that might come at play include learner‟sdifferences, and teacher‟s L2 competence. Learner‟s differences, more commonly known as Individual differences in SLA, arepsychological factors in learners that could contribute to their L2 acquisition. Ellis (1997)mentions three types of individual differences: a. Language aptitude: the ability to learn L2 naturally, as an in-born gift. b. Motivation: The attitudes and affective states that determine the degree of effort a learner exert to learn L2. c. Learning strategies: specific approaches or techniques the learners employ as a conscious effort to learn L2. Another intervening variable is teacher‟s competency both in teaching English and usingthe language itself. Umar-ud-Din et al. (2010) investigate the relationship between teacher‟squalification and students‟ L2 performance. It is revealed that English Language Teachers 18
    • (ELTs), having Master‟s degree in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of OtherLanguages),wield a more positive influence on students‟ L2 performance than Teachers withFormal Education (TFEs). Because of their sound knowledge in teaching methodology, ELTs areable to adapt to the classroom learning condition and use it as an advantage to promote learning.Such creativity is not found in TFEs where they mainly rely on text books for learning. Thisresults in ELTs‟ students having better final examination scores than the TFEs counterpart. Lamb (2002) also reports that teacher‟s incompetence in both the language and teachingmethodology might be the cause of students‟ stunted L2 development. Unaware of a soundteaching methodology, these teachers are reported to ask their students to do repetitive de-contextualized grammar exercises or language drills that may have little effect on their languagegains. Furthermore, since the teacher lacks English skills, the instructions are mainly delivered inL1. Hence, students do not get a healthy dose of comprehensible input needed for their L2acquisition.3. MethodologyThis section describes at length the methodology used for this particular study. It elaborates thepopulation, research design, instruments, reliability and validity, data collection procedure,conceptual and operational definitions, ethics, and data analysis for this study. 19
    • 3.1. PopulationThe Subjects of this study are 59second year senior high students, on average they are 17 to 18years old, with 29 males and 30 females. Due to the constraints of random sampling,convenientsampling was selected for this study. All students are from class XI-Science-4, XI-Science-5, and XI-Science-7 from the same school. These students have taken English as part oftheir compulsory subjects since junior high for five years. However, learning English in the classis limited to only writing grammatically correct sentences and doing reading comprehensionexercises. Students are rarely given a chance to speak English communicatively. This resulted instudents having somehow poor command of English.3.2Research DesignThis study utilized a mixed approach to research design. Specifically, it employed a sequentialmixed method as the data began with a quantitative method followed bya qualitative method(Creswell, 2009). A quantitative study was used to obtain the frequency of activities across thesample. It was also used to examine the correlation between their learning behavior andstudents‟English performance. Pickard (1996) asserts that this quantitative approach enables theresearcher to readily express and calculatethe frequency of students‟ out-of-class activities infigures. This allows the researcher to gain an overview of OCLLA.Furthermore, such approach iseffective in discerning language learning characteristics that are shared by three different levelsof students, that is grade A, B, and C students. Qualitative approach, on the other hand,wasused to describe these activities in detailthrough interviews and journals. This approach allows theresearcher to glean an in-depthstudyof 20
    • numerical representations from the quantitative data; it specifically aims to investigate thefirstresearch question of this study even further, which is to describe out-of-class languagelearning activities. In this sense, using both qualitative and quantitative methods adds strength tothe findings and addresses the limitations of each other.3.3. InstrumentsThe instruments employed in this study includea questionnaire, a face-to-face semi-structuredinterview, and documents (students‟ learning journals, and English scores).The questionnairewas adapted and adopted from the study done by Pickard (1996) which included 16 questionsrelated to the out-of-class activities that students generally engage in; these 16 questions weredivided in quarters, where each separate skills (i.e. listening, reading, speaking, and writing) wasgiven equal attention (i.e. four questions). For the sake of data processing, the questionnaire useda Likert scale ranging from never (value of 0) to „everyday‟ (a 4). The questions followed amatrix question format since it allowed closed-ended questionnaires that have the same categoryresponse to be presented efficiently (Babbie, 2010). The Interview was conducted face-to-face with open-ended questions. These questionswere based on the findings obtained from the questionnaire. Semi-structured interview wasthuschosen as the researcher has a general idea in mind where the direction of the interview wouldgo.However, at the same time it allows a great deal of flexibility, allowing new ideas andquestions to be brought up during the course of the interview (Nunan, 1992).The topical structureof the interview follows Benson‟s (2011) theoretical framework.The interview wasaudiotaped, 21
    • transcribed verbatim, translated if students prefer to use L1, and analyzed and interpreted usingkey word analysis by Nunan (1992). Both the questionnaire and the interview have gone through several refinements from apilot study conducted to 33 senior high school students from the same school in the previousyear. Some of the changes in the questionnaire include OCLLA „playing video games‟ replacingthe older item „going to the cinema‟.In the present study, the interview was conducted in L1instead of L2 as it allowed the participants to express their thoughts more freely; without abarrier in communication. To strengthen the findings, the data from interview and questionnairewere thentriangulated with students‟ learning journals.The use of journals grants the researcher the abilityto collect additional information about learner‟s activities which could be missing in thequestionnaire (Hyland, 2004). The format of the journal was adapted and adopted from a studyby Chausanachoti (2009)– Please refer to Appendix I, p. 60. In order to correlate OCLLA andEnglish achievement, students‟ English score was used. This score was gathered from theircurrent English test at school, which measures students‟ English achievement level by astandardized Indonesian national English examination (see Appendix D, p. 57-59). It is generally understood that L2 achievement tests aim to measure how far students havemastered the materials learned in the class. As such, the tests themselves must be related to thegoals and objectives specified by the teacher in the class. This is to be contrasted withproficiency tests like TOEFL or IELTS which measure learner‟s general language ability. Sincethe purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between OCLLA and L2 achievement,the English national exam was used as a research instrument for this study. The national exam 22
    • consists of 50 multiple choice questions, with 15 questions on listening, and 35 on reading.These questions are based on the materials covered in the class, and is specified by the currentcurriculum system in Indonesia, and therefore it qualifies as an achievement test. The fact thatreading is the dominant skill tested in the exam reflects government‟s current concern onreading, who believes that by putting more emphasis on reading in its education system, highschool students would be better able to cope with their academic reading skill (Nurweni andRead, 1999). Another reason why national exam was chosen is because the test is a standardizednational test, and thus validity and reliability could be ensured. At least, face validity could beattested on the grounds that it has been used in Indonesia since 1985 as a criterion for graduationand a benchmark to map the quality of its education across regions (Aziez, 2011).3.4. Reliability and ValidityReliability is defined as the degree of consistency of data measurement that would yield the sameresults if the data are taken on different occasions. Validity, on the other hand, is the degree ofaccuracy of what the research is trying to measure (Babbie, 2010). Since this study used a mixedmethod, the researcher had the means to employ different instruments from both quantitative andqualitative methods. In turn, this would allow data from interviews, questionnaires, and learningjournals to be triangulated. This triangulation process has been known to ensure reliability aswell as validity (Creswell, 2009). This study also involved an English test measuring students‟achievement in English, since it comes from a standardizedtest made by the government,reliability and validity could be ensured. 23
    • 3.5. Data Collection ProceduresThis study involved a simple four-step data collection procedure which is illustrated in the tablebelow: Step Task Duration First phase Collecting questionnaires One day Second phase Collecting students‟ English scores A week Third phase Collecting journals Two weeks Forth phase Conducting a face-to-face interview Three days During the first phase of data collection, questionnairesand students‟ current Englishscores were collected. For the questionnaire, the researcher came to the class, introduced whatthe research was about, and gave an instructionas to how to complete the questionnaire, all ofwhich approximately took 15 minutes to complete. The initial aim was to distribute thequestionnaires to three classes which would comprise of 75 students, with 25 students from eachclass. However, during the time of questionnaire distribution 7 students from these three classeswere absent, reducing the total number of the respondents down to 68 students. The secondphase involved administering an English national standardized test to these three classes over aweek. Again, there weresome students who did not partake in the exam; there were 9 missingscores from the 68 respondents who completed the questionnaires. The total number ofparticipants of this study is thus 59.The English score was obtained immediately after thedistribution of the questionnaires so that both results could be compared, correlated and analyzedas soon as possible. In the third phase, a week after the test, 15 studentswere introduced to ajournal and instructed to write their out-of-class language learning activities in two weeks.These 24
    • 15 students were randomly taken from three different levels of achievement based on theresulting score of the national exam in the second phase of data collection. Thus, the selected 15students each comprised of 5 students representing high, mid, and low scorers.In the final phaseof data collection, the same 15 students were interviewedface to face, and were asked based onthe entries of the journals they had written during the two week period. Each interview lastedapproximately 10 minutes.In total, the whole data collection took about a month.3.6. Conceptual and Operational DefinitionsThe conceptual definition of OCLLA is any self-initiated, non-assignment, out-of-class languagelearning activities done in learner‟s free time, with or without the intention to learn the languageitself (Chausanachoti, 2009; Pearson, 2004; Benson, 2011). In order to operationalize thisconcept, this study usedtwo kinds of measurement: frequency and classification. To gauge thefrequency, a 5-point Likert scale is employed (never, once a month, once a week, several times aweek, everyday) in the questionnaire – please refer to appendix B, p.49. As for the classification,this study adapts Benson‟s (2011) theoretical framework which groups OCLLA into three broadtypes: self-instruction, naturalistic learning, and self-directed naturalistic learning. The nextsection discusses at length how these operational definitions are conducted in a step-by-stepprocedure. 25
    • 3.7. Data AnalysisResults from the questionnaires werefirst converted into numbers and presented into tables inMicrosoft Excel. The mean scoresfor each activity were calculated in order to gain a preliminarydata offrequencyof students‟ out-of-class language learning activities. The results werethencorrelated to students‟ current English achievement score using Excel’s Pearson CorrelationCoefficient function. From the resulting score, students were divided into three different grades:those who obtained a score of more than 80 were graded A, those who received 60-79 wereclassified as grade B, and those who scored below 60 were classified as grade C. From thesethree groups,theout-of-class language learning activities are identified and analyzed. In order to ensure reliability, questionnaire findings were compared and cross-checked tothat of learning journals using a framework of analysis done by Chausanachoti (2009). Findingsfrom the learning journal were also analyzed using Benson‟s theoretical framework of OCLLAwhere the activities recorded in the journal wereidentified and grouped into three broadcategories: self-instruction, naturalistic learning, and self-directed naturalistic learning. Finally, recordings from the interview were transcribed, translated, and analyzed usingkeyword analysis from Nunan (1995) – Please refer to appendix H, p. 57-59 for the samplescript. Using this analysis, the researcher is able to identify and classify different themes fromtherecurring key words in the transcripts. The findings from the interview were then triangulatedwith the findings from questionnaire and learning journal. 26
    • The matrix below illustrates the methodology used for this particular study. Research Questions Data Collection Data Analysis Excel‟s mean Questionnaire function1. What are the most frequently used out-of-class language A framework oflearning activities employed by senior high Indonesian analysis by Journal Chausanacotistudents outside the class? (2009) A theoretical Interview framework by Benson (2011) Excel‟s2. What is the correlation between students‟ English Questionnaire Pearsonachievement and the language activities they do outside coefficient English Nationalthe class? correlation Exam function Questionnaire3. What are some of the language learning activitiesemployed by students who have high, mediocre, and poor Interview Excel‟s mean functionEnglish scores? English National Exam 27
    • 3.8. EthicsIn addressing ethical issues for this study, the researcher sent a written permission to theinstitution, describing the aim of study, data collection procedures and devices and ensuring thatthe findings would be safeguarded. The researcher also sent a letter of authenticity the affiliateduniversity as an evidence and verification of the authenticity of the research to the institution(Please see Appendix A, p.48).The researcher also has to have moral obligations to respect theindividuals taken as the subjects of this study (Creswell, 2009). It is particularly of a greatconcern in this study where sensitive information such as participants‟ scores and names mightbe revealed. To protect this privacy, the researcher informed the participants that their fullnameswould not be revealed.The researcher would have to make sure that the participantswouldnot be intruded by the activities involved in this study. This is of ethical concern in this studybecause 15 participants were involved in writing journals on a daily basis for two weeks. Theresearcher also collected data from questionnaires and interviews after school to minimizeintrusion to school activities observed by these participants. The researcher is well aware of thefact that the ministry of education of Indonesia, DepartemenPendidikan Indonesia or Depdikbudowns the copyright of the national exam questions and thus the researcher has worked towardsgetting their permission to have the exams used as an instrument of this study. However, due tothe intricate and cumbersome bureaucratic procedure to obtain one, the researcher instead askedfor the school‟s permission to use the exam questions. The school has the authority to use anysets of questions from the national examination, and has, in fact, regularly used this nationalexamination questions to test out students‟ English achievement scores, and use these scores topredict how students will perform in the upcoming national exams. Thus, obtaining thepermission to use the test from the school is thought to suffice. 28
    • 4. Result and DiscussionsQuestion 1: What are the most frequently used out-of-class language learning activities employed by senior high Indonesian students outside the class?From the questionnaire data analysis, it is revealed that out of class language learning activitiesemployed most is listening to songs (mean = 3.63), the second highest is watching DVD (2.15)followed by playing video games (2.63). The following table ranks the activities in order offrequency. A mean figure close to four means the activity is done every day, a three means theyare done a few times a week, two means once a week, one means once a month, and a numberclose to zero means that students never do the activity. No. Out-of-class activities done in English Mean 1 Listening to songs 3.63 2 Watching films on TV or DVD 2.63 3 Playing video games 2.15 4 Speaking casually with friends 1.90 5 Reading articles online 1.59 6 Writing Facebook statues 1.08 7 Speaking casually with families 1.00 8 Reading comics or manga online 0.98 9 Writing a blog 0.73 10 Writing a diary 0.71 11 Writing an e-mail 0.63 12 Reading Magazines 0.59 13 Listening to a radio program 0.54 14 Speaking to foreigners 0.53 15 Reading novels 0.46 16 Using a video-chat such as Skype 0.29 Table 1: Out-of-class language learning activities ranked in order of frequency. 29
    • Following Benson‟s (2011) framework, the findings from the journals reveal that the typeof out-class-language learning that the participants utilized most frequently is self-directedlanguage learning with 280 numbers of mentions, followed by naturalistic language learning (11mentions), and self-instruction (2 mentions).In self-directed language learning, participantstypically do the activities without the conscious effort to learn English. It is not surprising toknow that they are favored since activities like watching movies, or listening to the music areinherently interesting in themselves, and might actually form students‟ a daily routine. In theword of a learner: ‘My primary intention is to play games, I love knowing the benefits these games bring to my English, they are both addictive and beneficial, but learning English is not the main reason why I play video games.’(G.N.) The findings also largely conform to the study by Pickard (1996) who finds that theprime reason for choosing out-of-class activities employed by 20 advanced German learners ofEnglish was the intrinsic interest value of the activities. The journal reveals that naturalistic language learning is not preferred much as a popularout-of-class language learning activities, which can be seen by the shrinking number of activitiesmentioned in the journal from 280 down to only 11 mentions. In naturalistic language learning,learners seek the opportunity to speak in English with native speakers, peers, or their families.All of the activities reported are casual conversations with friends, except for one case where astudent uses a video chat such as Skype to communicate with his friend abroad. The journaldoesn‟t have any tracks of record where students speak with native speakers. Self-instructionconstitutes the smallest portion of out-of-class language learning activitiesemployed by the participants writing the journal. There were only 2 cases of this type of 30
    • OCLLA,which are practicing English spelling for the upcoming spelling bee competitionatschool and finding the meaning of the lyric of a song. In self-instruction, learners make theconscious effort to learn the language by studying alone without intervention from teachers orhelp from peers. The fact that there is a deliberate effort on the part of the learners clearly makesthis type of OCLLA distinct from the previous two types. Comparing the four skills used in the questionnaire, listening skill-based OCLLA scoredsignificantly higher (mean = 2.24) than the rest of the skills. The next highest is speaking (0.93),followed by reading (0.91) and writing (0.79). Data from the journal reveal that listening stillstays at the top (234 mentions), however reading is now ranked in the second place (24mentions), followed by speaking (22 mentions), and writing (18 mentions). Combining thefigures of listening and reading-based activities, it may be concluded that receptive skills areused more frequently than that of productive skills (speaking and writing). This finding reflectsthe current status of most English language learners in Indonesia who are still passive learners(Lamb, 2002). They are quite able to understand English but they would find themselves at astruggle when producing the language.The findings on these four separate skills in turn will beelaborated in turn.4.1. ListeningThe four activities related to listening skill arelistening to English news or programs on theradio, watching movies on TV / DVDs, playing video games with English voice-overs, andlistening to songs. For obvious reasons, the activity that scored the highest is listening to songs(3.63). Indeed, learners would listen hours and hours to English songs and seem to benefit much 31
    • from being exposed to them (Cheung, 2001).Songs also provide a wealthy source ofpronunciation input for learners (Chausanachoti, 2009). In the words of one learner: ‘I learn a great deal of English from songs. Songs give me the right way to pronounce words in English.’ (N. S.) Those who study and memorize the lyrics of the songs would also be at an advantage ofgaining natural English expressions and language chunks (Smith, 2003). From the interviews, itis reported that the vocabularies learned from songs would sometimes be used, althoughinformally, in their everyday writing such as in their Facebook statuses.Caution has to bementioned however, that in order for this listening material to be treated as an intake invocabulary acquisition, learners have to pay attention to it (Saville-Troike, 2006). The next highest score goes to watching movies on TV or DVDs, which in themselvesprovide an inherently interesting source of material for learners to pick up English from. Whenasked which one activity among all listed in the questionnaires that help improve their Englishmost, learners would often say they learn a lot from the movies. In the words of one learner: ‘I am a movie addict; I would often go to Kota Kembang to buy movies once every two days. I used to have two shelves just to store movies. Watching movies have helped me tremendously, there are lots of words that I gained that I don’t get from my English lessons. In fact, in the class I would often learn formal words that I seldom use.’(G.N.) As succinctly expressed by the participant above, learners learn a great deal of English asthey watch movies, notably the everyday English expressions like colloquial and idiomaticexpression (Eken, 2003). Such materials would be difficult to present to learners in the classbecause they are context-dependent. Another advantage of watching movies is the availability ofa visual element such as facial expressions and bodily gestures which greatly aids the listening 32
    • comprehension for learners (Harmer, 2007); they may even turn the subtitle on to further aidtheir comprehension. However, as such, it is arguably difficult to consider it as a listeningmaterial, since then learners would pay attention to the text as they read, and not from thedialogues. In this respect, movies as shown in cinema are even worse because learners will lookat the subtitles in their native language, Indonesian. This feature is thankfully absent in mostDVDs. But when there is one, learners tend to pick it as the first subtitle option, bargaining theadvantageous nature of listening to rich L1 dialogues. The next most frequently used activity which constitutes the third most popular activityfrom the questionnaires is playing video games.As produced today, games might feature voice-overs by which players can listen to the voice of the video game characters. Listening to these L2dialogues is far more crucial than listening to L2 dialogues in movies. In an adventure game forexample, a failure to understand what they mean would lead to unfortunate consequences in thegame play. In order to make any sense of the story, learners must follow exactly what the gameinstructions tell them to, and this is where L2 learning is at play. Most games these days areplayed online, in which different players from around the world do the same quest to achievecertain objectives. Such multi-player online games provide a chance for students to interact withother players in English especially when the other players are international players, as reportedby one student in the interview: ‘In Warcraft, we have a single player and multiplayer. If I happen to play the multiplayer mode with Indonesian players, then I would use either English or Bahasa, but of course when I meet other players, I must use English when communicating with them.’(Y.D.) Learners would often consult F.A.Q. or walkthrough in the internet in order to help themsurvive in the game, which is another receptive skill at work. This is yet another advantage of 33
    • playing games because it constantly asks learners to make use of their English while at the sametime keeping them entertained for hours (Cruz, 2007). Listening to English radio program is the least frequently used due to the scarcity of suchprograms. A radio program here means any regular radio programs such as news report, or aFriday night horror story-telling, however they are broadcasted in English. It is sobering to knowthat, even the activity of listening to the radio itself, regardless of what language is spoken, isdepleting. This is reflected by the fact that listening to the radio is the third least favorite activityin this study (mean = 0.54).What seems to be a trend now is an internet radio, broadcasted fromsoftware like iTunes. One student reported of having listened to this iTunes radio where shelistened to the announcer broadcasting in English, playing a compilation of songs from the1990s.4.2. ReadingIn this particular skill, reading online articles received the highest mean score (1.59), followedby reading comics (0.98), magazines (0.59), and novels (0.46). The scores seem to represent thevalue of availability of each of these four media. Reading online article, while being readilyavailable, is picked up most because of learners‟ immediate need to obtain a source ofinformation. The instant and highly relevant information which internet can provide faroutweighs the benefits of reading the newspaper or magazine. A student says that she regularlybrowses the internet for articlessuch as a movie synopsis or summary on imdb (short for internetmovie data base, can be accessed at http://www.imdb.com/) before deciding what films to buy. Comics are another excellent out-of-class language learning activity where learners mayacquire language chunks used in context while at the same time they get entertained because of 34
    • its intrinsic interest (Danaher & Hammond, 2011). Most of the type of comics students prefer areanime, or also referred to as Manga. These Japanese-made comics are available both in BahasaIndonesia and English, but learners prefer the latter as they are updated more promptly than theformer. The visual elements in comics aids the comprehension of unfamiliar words encounteredthe comics. Such privilege does not extend to novels, which turns novel the least favoredOCLLA in reading skill. There are many other reasons why reading novel is ranked so poorly in this study. First ofall, it is thought that the school does not have access to a variety of interesting novels thatstudents can read, aside from the popular ones like Harry Potter or Twilight. Even when theyread those two popular novels, chances are they would read the translated ones. One participantclaimed that she would never again read the unabridged version of these popular series, as herfirst attempt proved to be quite incessantly long and therefore making the whole experience ofreading unpleasant. In her words, she said: ‘I heard many people said that the English version can give the best novel reading experience. So I took the chance, but it took me so long to finish reading that one novel. I would often ask the meaning of the word every now and then. From that moment on, I decided that it would be the last one for me, I dread doing another one, because it’s just too tedious.’(N.A.) Such unpleasant reading experience is related to our next point of discussion: Readingnovels seem to be a privilege for learners whose English is good enough to cope with the manyunfamiliar literary words. Those who reported of reading novels frequently seem to have thesame strategy of coping with unfamiliar words, in which they guess the words within its contextinstead of looking them up in a dictionary. Such strategy training should be taught to students, ifthey were to become successful readers. Another viable solution is to introduce and set up an 35
    • extensive reading activity where learners can read simplified books that are targeted for theircurrent English level.4.3. SpeakingWithin this category, speaking with friends or/and teachers at school receives the highest meanscore (1.90) followed by speaking with family at home (1.00), speaking with native speakers ofEnglish (0.53), and using Skype to chat with friends abroad (0.29). Overall, out-of-classspeaking activities received a remarkably low mean score (0.93). One of the possible reasons forthis is because English learners of Indonesian are largely passive learners (Lamb, 2002). Anotherreason is learner‟s lack of sense of security to engage in English conversations openly in publicplaces. As one student commented: ‘I normally don’t speak English because people would think that I am weird. I am afraid of people saying that I am putting on airs.’(A.N.)This hindrance of speakingdue to social negative judgment particularly in EFL contextsconforms to the study by done Lamb (2002) and Hyland (2004). Furthermore, the choices givenwithin this skill are not one that learners can use everyday. For example, talking with nativespeakers would be difficult because learners do not see them on a daily basis. Even among theirpeers, some students claim that they do not often have a partner to speak English with. They feelthat their time is being wasted because whenever they speak English, their friends would justreply them back in the mother tongue. Another issue with availability is Skype, which ranks the lowest score in this category. Itcould be that they do not know how to use Skype, do not have friends abroad, or do not speakEnglish even if they have friends abroad and know how to use Skype. The multifaceted and 36
    • complex problem in using Skype clearly makes it the least used OCLLA out all 16 activitiesacross other skills.4.4. WritingIn order of frequency from the most used to the least used, the four writing-based learningactivities employed by 59participants in this studyincludewriting Facebook status (1.08), blogs(0.73), diaries (0.71), and E-mails (0.63). In relation to what has been mentioned before aboutnegative social judgment, writing Facebook status enable learners to publicly express themselveswithout the fear of being humiliated when they write erroneous sentences, as the speakingcounterpart usually do. When writing statuses, learners may use whatever English they have attheir disposal to express themselves. The key benefit of writing is that it gives learners unlimitedtime to edit, add, and choose a range of expressions, a feature that is not availablewhen speaking(Brown, 2001). During the process of editing their written English, learners are continuouslyreflecting and analyzing their language to make any necessary changes. For this reason, as shortas it might be, writing status on Facebook in English may be highly beneficial to L2 acquisition. Frequency wise, writing blogs is placed in the second position after writing EnglishFacebook statuses.One of the possible reasons why it is ranked second is that blogs couldpotentially give tremendous power of giving writers an instant self-recognition because peoplemay look at the writing and comment positively on it, especially if the comment comes from theteacher who gives positive and constructive feedback both on the content and the language(Pinkman, 2005). However, most writers just want to express themselves without wanting toinform people. Thus, privacy-wise, learners write diaries more. 37
    • Writing e-mails and diaries both received quite low scores, 0.63 and 0.71 respectively,which means that both are approximately done at least once in a month. Though they may seemto be similarly low in terms of score, what really sets them apart is the purpose of writing. Fromthe interviews, those who answered writing e-mails had no choice but to write them in English inorder to communicate with the person they are addressing. On the contrary, when learners writediaries, they always have that option to write in L1 if they so prefer and their reason to write inEnglish is clearly because they have the conscious effort to improve their writing skills. Thosewho have access to the internet may extend this to blogs.Question 2: What is the correlation between students’ English achievement and the language activities they do outside the class?The discussion has so far been centered on the description of out-of-class learning activities usedby Indonesian high-school learners, but its significance to the actual language learning is stillopen to question. To answerwhether these activitieshave any bearings on learning in theclassroom, students‟ current English score is used and compared to the findings in thequestionnaire. It is revealed that there is a relationship between students‟ English achievementand their engagement to a range of language learning activities outside the class. In general thisconforms to the findings conducted in previous studies which claim that the increase infrequency of students‟ OCLLA is relative to the improvement in their English performance(Benson &Reinders, 2011; Lamb, 2002; Marefat&Barbari, 2009; Pearson, 2004). However,given the scope of limitations set in this study – in which the means of obtaining students‟achievement is through the standardized National Exam questions, the relationship is found to bequite weak. Using Pearson correlation coefficient, it is found that the correlation is a mere 0.31. 38
    • Therefore it could be concluded that students‟ engagement to out-of-class language learningactivities has a negligible effect on their English national exam scores. In other words, those whoemploy more language learning activities outside will somehow perform better in the exam.However, this is not to say that OCLLA is the only attribute that can improve students‟ score.Other intervening variables such as learner‟s motivation, learner‟s learning strategy, andteacher‟s English competence may also have their roles in the success of students‟ L2achievement.Question 3: What are some of the language learning activities employed by students who have high, mediocre, and poor English scores?In order to seek the answer to the third research question of this study, students were first dividedin three different groups based on their scores. Grade C for those scoring below 60 (n=29), gradeB for those achieving 60 up to 79 (n=19), and Grade A for those achieving 80 and above (n=11).After gathering all individual mean scores from the questionnaires, each group‟s OCLLA meanscore is obtained. The study reveals that grade C obtained the lowest mean score (1.0),Grade Aobtained the highest mean score (1.6), and grade B students sit in the middle (1.3).The findingssuggest that, starting from the low grade, there is 0.3 increment mean value as students‟ Englishlevel goes up. In other words, as students‟ English performance increases, their engagement toout-of-class language learning activities also intensifies. The findings appear to be consistentwith what the previous studies found, in that the high-achieving group tends to employ out-of-class language learning more than those in mid or low achieving group (Lamb, 2002; Marefatand 39
    • Barbari, 2009).To elaborate this finding further, each group‟s out-of-class learning activities willbe discussed in turn.4.3.1. Grade C The table below illustrates the mean scores of OCLLA employed by students from this grade: Table 2: Out-of-class language learning activities – Grade C.It can be clearly seen that the most used activity within this group is listening to songs (mean =3.45). This particular media seems to be their favorite everyday activity. It is also reported thatthe language acquired in songs is later used in Facebook statuses. Both activities are preferredasthey do not require students to use much English. This explains why reading novels scored sopoorly in this grade (mean = 0.38). Their English might not be good enough to employ it as anout-of-class learning activity. As a result, their overall level of English performance is low.Apparently, this seems to be the case of a chicken-and-egg theory. It presents a casualtydilemma, in which both the achievement score and out-of-class language learning activities seemto affect each other and it is unknown which one is the first to cause another (Gass&Selinker,1994). This suggest that these students are trapped in a vicious cycle, where their English maynot improve much because they do not seek opportunities or means to engage in OCLLA. Theirpoor English might inevitably result in a loss of motivation to learn the language, albeit theyknow how important studying English is. One learner from this group confesses: 40
    • ‘I personally believe that English is important, and will be especially needed for my future as when I get a job, or other things. But the thing is, I honestly don’t think I have enough motivation to study the language.’(R.R.)Their poor English also raises the confidence issue that these learners face when encounteringnative speakers on the street. In the words of one learner: ‘I don’t have the courage to talk with natives, I am not confident, my English is too bad, I can’t say a word because of my lack of vocabulary, I am just speechless in front of them.’(M.A)This lack of confidence accounts for the overall score of speaking which is the poorest (0.72),compared to the other groups (grade B = 1.08, grade A = 1.23). From table 6 (Appendix E, p.54), it is observed that this lack of confidence in speaking slightly affects other OCLLA as well.For example, participant no. 28, who exceptionally achieved a mean OCLLA score of 2.5 in thisgroup, had the confidence of speaking with her friends and family several times a week. Ingeneral, this confidence extends to writing-based skills as well. This particular student might bemore productive in writing because of her exposure to the language in receptive skills, especiallyin listening skill. But, why was such a confident and knowledgeable student scored so poorly inthe exam (scored 38)? In other words, she employs the most OCLLA in her group and yet herEnglish test scored the lowest two. One of the possible explanations for this is that the test itselfis designed to measure mainly reading ability. If we look back at the table, student no. 25 indeedrelatively seldom employs reading-based activity outside the class as compared to the other setsof skills, which is why she did poorly in this exam. 41
    • 4.3.2. Grade B In general, students in this group employ OCLLAs more often than Grade C students. In comparison to the mean score in Grade C, there is a slight improvement on every skill. However, some activities are employed less often in this group, namely reading novels, writing blogs, and writing a diary. Apart from novels, the rest is writing-based skill and hence writing decreases only slightly (from 0.77 to 0.72 in this group). The table below shows out-of-class language learning activities employed by grade B students: Listening Reading Speaking Writing TOTALRadio DVD Games Songs Articles Manga Mag Novels NS Peers Family Skype E-mails Blogs Diaries Fb0.95 3.00 1.95 3.79 1.95 1.05 0.79 0.32 0.74 2.16 1.21 0.21 0.53 0.68 0.63 1.05 1.3 2.42 1.03 1.08 0.72 Table 3: Out-of-class language learning activities – Grade B. Compared to the previous group, students in grade B employ reading-based skills more often. The mean score for reading is higher than grade C (from 0.60 to 1.03). It can be argued that from these reading activities, their L2 achievement is improved. This, in turn causes them to be more confident speakers, which is reflected in the overall speaking mean score. Although in general, grade A students employ more speaking activities outside the classroom, it can be observed that grade B students have slightly higher means particularly in speaking with native speakers, and speaking with peers, something that could be regarded as speaking English in public. It can be assumed that grade B students are characterized as risk-takers, carefree speakers; they speak as much as they can without worrying about how people would think of their English. A learner from this group says: ‘I enjoy communicating with my friends in English. I speak as much as I can without worrying about my grammar. Sometimes, it might make them confused, but after I explain using different words, they can understand and continue the conversation.’(R.S.) 42
    • As fluent as they might be, grade B students may have to come to terms to the fact thatlearning grammar is important, because as quoted above, their inadequacy in expressing clearlythemselves may at times cause communication breakdown. However, they should not be toogrammar-conscious that would jeopardize the flow of the speech.4.3.3. Grade A The table below illustrates the findings on Grade A students: Table 4: Out-of-class language learning activities – Grade A.In comparison to the previous group, there is an improvement on the frequency of out-of-classlearning activities by Grade A, but only slightly. One distinctive characteristic of these highachievers is that they are avid readers. There is a marked increase in reading score from theprevious group (from 1.03 to 1.50) compared to increments observed in the other three skills. Itcould be assumed that their excellent English scores are influenced by their increased exposureof reading materials outside the class, and vice versa. Grade A students seem to write more,albeit not substantially, than the previous students from the other two groups. This explains thesignificant correlation between reading and writing in L2. Saville-Troike (2006) views reading asthe primary channel for language input, which learners use as a model to follow in their writing. Compared to grade B students, grade A students seem tobe unwilling to speak outsidetheir comfort zone. High-achieving students seem to engage more in English conversations if itis within the confinement of their houses. Group A students also seem to hesitate and tend tosecond guess themselves when they speak during the interview; thinking a lot about how theyspeak correctly. This grammar-conscious attitude stems from the belief that the best language 43
    • learning strategy is to learn grammar from English exercise books, as stated by two learners inthis group. This finding seems to conform to Krashen‟s theory about acquisition versus learning.The learned language, such as grammar, may help us monitor our language. But the more we doso, the less spontaneous we become (Harmer, 2007). Thus, fluency is at stake for these learners. Video games are another popular activity among these high-achievers. Besides beinginherently interesting in themselves, games are perceived to offer many benefits to thesestudents, particularly the acquisition of casual, every day English that is not available in theformal learning contexts in the classroom. The input of these words that are acquired through theEnglish voice-overs narrated by the actors while they play the game would then be put inpractice as they speak with the other players in multi-player mode. Students from this gradeconsciously pay attention to what they say because meaning is crucial during the exchange ofinformation in the game. Accuracy is important in order to enhance the precision of informationexchange in playing a multi-player game. A learner reports that he would have a dictionary readyin case he comes across a difficult word in the game. One learner from this group even reportsthat, he studies the dictionary, remembering a word on a daily basis. Another learner also statesthat, because of game, he learned English more seriously in the class, doing grammar andvocabulary exercises from the book, especially after his game partners mocked that his Englishwas not good. In the interview, this learner states: ‘I learn English from grammar exercises for the sake of enhancing my English skills when communicating with other gamers online. This is because people complained about my bad English.’(M.G.) Both looking up words in the dictionary or even studying the dictionary, and doinggrammar exercisesindicate that grade A learners put a lot more conscious effort in learning 44
    • English. For them, these activities have become a part of their lives. They listen, read, speak, andwrite in English almost everyday. This increased effort might stem from their inner motivationand their passion to learn English, which seems to be lacking in grade B or C students. In orderto gain a general overview of these differences, a side-by-side comparison is illustrated below: Grade A Grade B Grade CBasic characteristic Avid readers Risk-takers Entertainment loversLanguage skills theymainly employ in their Listening and Reading Listening and Speaking Listening and Writingactivities Writing-based activities: Reading online articles, Reading magazines,Preferred out-of-class Writing Facebook playing games, speaking Speaking with friendslearning activities statues, a diary, or with families and teachers at school blogs. Indifferent andAttitude to learning Highly motivated; Carefree; Learn as they Inhibited; Trapped in aEnglish shows effort in learning go and want to vicious cycle Fluent speakers, Reticent speakers; very Grammar-conscious; although they speak in a limited in terms ofAttribute to speaking pay attention to detail poor command of expression and English vocabulary “I don‟t have problems “I dislike English; it is “I love English and take with learning English. If too difficult for me toWhat they would say it as an inseparable part there is a chance, I don‟t learn. I‟d stay awayabout English of my life” mind spending time from it if I can, unless with it” it‟s very interesting” Table 5: A side-by-side characteristics comparison of the three different groups of learners. 45
    • 5. Suggestions for future research.Due to the constraints of time to conduct the study and the permission to choose the researchparticipants, future studies could continue and expand the findings set forth in this study byhaving a larger number of participants in a different learning context for a longer period of time.A different set of questionnaires could be used, where the activities presented in thequestionnaires do overlap in language skills. This particular study aims to find out whether thenational English exam, which has been used in Indonesia as a standard measurement of Englishachievement in class, correlates with what the students do outside the class. It would beinteresting to see how different kinds of measurement correlate with OCLLA in futureresearch;perhaps one that targets all the four language skills.6. ConclusionsThis study examines out-of-class language learning activities (OCLLA) carried out by 59 seniorhigh schools in one particular school in Bandung. The overriding aim of this study is to discoverthe link between activities that are employed outside the class and the English achievement inclass. Using Benson‟s (2011) framework, the findings from the journals reveal that the type ofout-class-language learning that the participants utilized most is self-directed language learning.Specifically, the most popular self-directed language learning activities based on the findings inthis study are listening to songs, watching movies on TV/DVD, and playing video games, all ofwhichfall into a passive skill. The study also suggests that learners employ more receptive skillsthan productive skills. The findings of this study remain consistent to those that were foundinprevious studies in thatthe receptive skills (listening and writing) were the most widely used out-of-class language learning activities (Pickard, 1996; Pearson, 2004; Hyland, 2004; Al-Otaibi, 46
    • 2004; Chausanachoti, 2009; Marefat and Barbari, 2009). This reflects the current situation ofIndonesian learners, where most of them are passive learners (Lamb, 2002). This study alsoconforms to the findings done by Pickard (1996) which suggests that the OCLLA reflectslearners‟ personal learning style. The study finds thatthese out-of-class language learning activities seem to correlate withstudents‟ English achievement score, albeit not to a significant degree. Those who employ morelanguage learning activities outside their classroom, tend to havebetter grades. However, cautionshould be exercised because there are obviously other intervening variables at play.Teacher‟scompetency both in the language and teaching, students‟ language aptitude, motivation, andlearning strategies are among some of the factors that influence their L2 achievement. The studyalso has suggested different learning activities that are preferred by each different group of levelsof English performance.In general, data from the questionnaires reveal that high-achieversemploy more reading activities, mid-achievers use more speaking activities, and the low-achievers utilize more writing activities. 47
    • ReferencesAl-Otaibi, G. (2004). Language learning strategy use among Saudi EFL students and its relationship to language proficiency level, gender and motivation.(Doctoral dissertation).Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. 3129188).Anderson, K. (2004). Teachers‟ conceptions of language learning: out-of-class interactions. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003.Aziez, F. (2011). Examining the Vocabulary Levels of Indonesia‟s English National Examination Texts. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 51, pp. 16-29.Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research (12thedn.).California: Wadsworth, CengageLearning.Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning (2nd edn.). Harlow:Pearson Education.Benson, P., Reinders, H. (2011). Beyond the Language Classroom. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by Principles (2nd edn.). New York: Pearson Education.Brown, H. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th edn.). New York: PearsonEducation.Chausanachoti, R. (2009). EFL learning through language activities outside the classroom: A case study of English education students in Thailand.(Doctoral dissertation).Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. 3363815).Cheung, C. (2001). The use of popular culture as a stimulus to motivate secondary students‟ English learning in Hong Kong.ELT Journal, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 55-61.Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design.California: SAGE Publication.Cruz, J. (2007). Video Games and the ESL classroom.The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3.Retrieved May 28, 2012.http://iteslj.org/Articles/Quijano-VideoGames.htmlDanaher, K., Hammond, K. (2011). The value of targeted comic book readers.ELT Journal advanced access, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 1-12.Eken, A. (2003). You‟ve got mail: a film workshop.ELT Journal, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 51-59.Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 48
    • Gao, X. (2008). The „English Corner‟ as an out-of-class learning activity.ELT Journal, Vol.61, No. 1, pp. 60-67.Gass, S.,Selinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course.NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Harmer, J. (2007).The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th edn.). Essex: PearsonLongman.Harmer, J. (2007).How to Teach English. Essex: Pearson Longman.Hyland, F. (2004).Learning Autonomously: Contextualizing Out-of-Class English Language Learning.Language Awareness, Vol. 13, No.3, pp. 180-202.Lai, C., Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology.Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 317-335.Lamb, M. (2002). Explaining successful language learning in difficult circumstances.Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, Vol. 17, pp. 35-52.Marefat, F., Barbari, F. (2009).The relationship between out-of-class language learning strategy use and reading comprehension ability. PortaLinguarum, Vol. 12, pp. 91-106.Mori, S. (2002).The relationship between motivation and the amount of out-of-class reading.(Doctoral dissertation).Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. 3040345).Nunan.(1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nurweni, A., Read, J. (1999). The English Vocabulary Knowledge of Indonesian University Students.English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.161-175.Pearson, N. (2004). The idiosyncrasies of out-of-class language learning: A study of mainland Chinese students studying English at tertiary level in New Zealand.Proceedings of theIndependent Learning Conference 2003.Pickard, N. (1996). Out-of-class language learning strategies.ELT Journal, Vol. 50, No.2,pp.150- 159.Pinkman, K. (2005). Using blogs in the foreign language classroom: Encouraging learner independence.THEJALT CALL Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 12-24.Renandya, W. (2007).The power of extensive reading.RELC Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 133- 149 49
    • Saville, M.,Troike. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Smith, G. (2003). Music and Mondegreens: extracting meaning from noise.ELT Journal, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 113-121.Ucán, J. (2010). Benefits of using extensive listening in ELT.Retrieved 29 May, 2012.http://fel.uqroo.mx/adminfile/files/memorias/borges_ucan_jose_luis.pdf 50
    • APPENDIX C SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONSBenson‟s framework: a. Self-instruction: 1. What out-of-class activities do you intentionally do to learn English? 2. Which activities do you believe help improve your English much? 3. Do you consult dictionaries when you find difficult words while reading? 4. Do you do other activities such as vocabulary exercises or TOEFL preparation exercise? b. Naturalistic language learning: 1. Who do you usually interact in English with outside the class? 2. Do you find it easy to speak in English with people around you? 3. Do you find it easy to speak with native speakers that you meet on the street? 4. What do you think of the other people‟s judgment on you when you speak English in public? c. Self-directed language learning: 1. Are you currently subscribing to any English newspapers / magazines? 2. What kinds of novels do you read? 3. What kinds of songs do you like to listen to? 4. Which video games do you play? 5. Where do you go online for manga / articles? 6. Who do you write E-mail in English to? 7. When you watch movies on DVD, do you use the subtitle on? 8. Could you explain in detail the other activities not mentioned in the questionnaire? 53
    • 55
    • 56
    • Out-of-class Language LearningE Appendix Activities - Grade C 57 Listening Reading Speaking WritingNo. Name TOTAL EXAM Radio DVD Games Songs Articles Manga Mag Novels NS peers family skype E-mails Blogs Diary Fb1 Participant 1 0 1 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.9 56.02 Participant 2 0 3 2 4 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.9 54.03 Participant 3 1 3 3 4 1 4 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 2 1.7 52.04 Participant 4 0 2 2 4 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 3 1.5 52.05 Participant 5 0 1 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.9 38.06 Participant 6 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 54.07 Participant 7 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 2 3 0 1.2 56.08 Participant 8 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.7 56.09 Participant 9 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.6 56.010 Participant 10 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 46.011 Participant 11 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.8 38.012 Participant 12 1 3 0 4 3 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 3 1 1.4 54.013 Participant 13 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 40.014 Participant 14 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 46.015 Participant 15 0 2 4 4 4 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 1.5 42.016 Participant 16 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 2 2.1 46.017 Participant 17 0 4 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 1.2 34.018 Participant 18 0 4 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 44.019 Participant 19 0 2 3 4 1 0 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 0 0 1.4 52.020 Participant 20 0 1 3 4 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 1.1 36.021 Participant 21 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 44.022 Participant 22 0 1 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.6 54.023 Participant 23 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.7 44.024 Participant 24 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.8 44.025 Participant 25 3 3 3 4 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.3 46.026 Participant 26 0 3 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.8 56.027 Participant 27 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 52.028 Participant 28 0 3 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 2.5 38.029 Participant 29 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1.9 52.0 0.38 2.21 1.86 3.45 0.93 0.66 0.45 0.38 0.31 1.66 0.72 0.17 0.48 0.72 0.93 0.93 1.0 47.7 1.97 0.60 0.72 0.77 Table 6: OCLLA employed by students with a low score in the exam.
    • Appendix F 58 Out-of-class Language Learning Activities - Grade B Listening Reading Speaking WritingNo. Name TOTAL EXAM Radio DVD Games Songs Articles Manga Mag Novels NS Peers Family Skype E-mails Blogs Diaries Fb1 Participant 30 0 2 3 4 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 0 1.3 60.02 Participant 31 3 3 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 1.0 62.03 Participant 32 0 3 1 4 2 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 1.4 78.04 Participant 33 1 3 1 4 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.0 78.05 Participant 34 0 3 3 4 2 2 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1.3 76.06 Participant 35 0 3 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.8 76.07 Participant 36 1 3 2 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 0 1 1 1 2 1.7 74.08 Participant 37 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1.3 64.09 Participant 38 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.7 72.010 Participant 39 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 76.011 Participant 40 0 3 0 4 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 1.4 64.012 Participant 41 0 4 4 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 76.013 Participant 42 0 3 3 4 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 70.014 Participant 43 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 1.0 64.015 Participant 44 0 4 4 4 4 1 3 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 3 1.8 68.016 Participant 45 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 64.017 Participant 46 3 3 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 1.6 60.018 Participant 47 1 3 3 4 3 1 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 1.6 60.019 Participant 48 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 1 2 4 4 3 2 3 3 1 2.8 62.0 0.95 3.00 1.95 3.79 1.95 1.05 0.79 0.32 0.74 2.16 1.21 0.21 0.53 0.68 0.63 1.05 1.3 68.6 2.42 1.03 1.08 0.72 Table 7: OCLLA employed by students with an average score in the exam
    • Appendix G 59 Out-of-class Language Learning Activities - Grade A Listening Reading Speaking WritingNo Name TOTAL EXAM Radio DVD Games Songs Articles Manga Mag Novels NS Peers Family Skype E-mails Blogs Diaries Fb1 Participant 49 0 2 4 3 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1.3 90.02 Participant 50 0 4 4 4 3 2 0 0 4 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 1.9 88.03 Participant 51 0 3 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 0 3 1.6 88.04 Participant 52 0 2 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.8 86.05 Participant 53 2 3 4 4 3 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 2 3 0 1 1.8 86.06 Participant 54 0 4 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 90.07 Participant 55 0 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 0 0 4 3 3 2.7 88.08 Participant 56 0 3 0 4 2 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 1.4 98.09 Participant 57 0 3 4 4 2 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 1.4 86.010 Participant 58 1 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2.1 84.011 Participant 59 0 3 3 4 3 0 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 1.3 84.0 0.27 3.09 3.27 3.82 2.73 1.73 0.64 0.91 0.73 2.09 1.36 0.73 1.18 0.82 0.27 1.55 1.6 88.0 2.61 1.50 1.23 0.95 Table 6: OCLLA employed by students with a high score in the exam.
    • APENDIX H ONE EXCERPT FROM AN INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTIONThe interview was originally conducted in BahasaIndonesia, the following transcription is thetranslated version.Name: Yahya Date: 2 / 2 / 2012Interviewer: Ok then. Let’s begin the interview, so do you prefer it to be in English in Indonesian?Y: Let’s use Indonesian.I: Ok. Out of all the activities you’ve written down so far, do you have some activities consciously done to improve your English? For instance, when you listen to the music, of course we just listen to the music in passing, without necessarily gaining any linguistic advantage out of it, right?Y: I think so, such as when I listen to a song, and I find out that I like the song, I would then find the lyric of the song and I read it.I: So the lyric must come from the net then. You are not using one of those programs that automatically search for a lyric, right? I forgot the nameY: No, I don’t think so.I: Ok, so when you read the lyrics, you may find some new difficult words, so how do you deal with them? Do you consult a dictionary?Y: That… no, I don’t usually consult a dictionary, it’s not practical, so what I would do is to make sense of the word by guessing the meaning within its context by looking at the sentences there.I: I see now. So looking back at the activities you wrote, what would be the most helpful activity which improves your English? Listening to song perhaps? Or …?Y: Yes, listening to a song and watching a film, I guess.I: I see, the film you watch from a DVD, I assume. What subtitle do you use? English or Indonesia?Y: It depends, if the English subtitle is available, I will opt for one.I: Because you know, sometimes we also have Indonesian subtitles available, though sometimes they sound funny.Y: No, I wouldn’t use that, because it would be weird. I never watch movies alone, I usually watch them together with my brother or sister, and they would be confused if Indonesian subtitles are used. It’s much easier using English. 60
    • I: Yes, I know, because the quality of the translation is bad, everything looks as if it has been Google- translated.Y: Yes, and sometimes whey they are unable to give the translation, English subtitles would be used instead.I: Ok, wow look at this, you seem to have a complete list of out-of-class activity. Ok now, what about doing grammar exercises or any exam-related exercises like national exams? Have you tried doing those?Y: No, I don’t think so. But if I ever had to write in English, that would be to try writing an English song lyric.I: Oh I see, so you are a song writer then.Y: More or less, I would just do the lyric and my friend would then do the finishing touch before doing the recording.I: I see, are you in a group band? How many songs have you made so far?Y: Yes, but what I write are mostly Indonesian songs, I only wrote very few English songs.I: What are the songs mostly about?Y: Mostly they are about love, school, and things that happen in my life.I: If you have got the lyric with you, I would very much love to see it for myself.Y: I have one with me, but I am afraid it’s not the final version, and besides I left it on my cellphone.I: Oh ok, never mind. So, you made this lyric all by yourself, or do you collaborate with your friends?Y: I collaborated with my friend.I: OK, now let’s move on to speaking. Do you often use English with your friends or family?Y: I seldom use English when speaking with friends, but I sometimes speak English with my brother. But then again, it’s not regular, its more like random, such as when I play games suddenly he would come and say things in English.I: I see, do you have any difficulties speaking English in public?Y: For instance, I sometimes would forget the grammar or vocabulary.I: But would you think that grammar is important when speaking?Y: No, I suppose not. It’s just that I don’t know how to say things though I know what I mean to say.I: What about speaking with native speakers? Have you done that?Y: I guess I have, it was when I took a holiday in Bali with my family. When I was learning surfing together with these foreigners. One of them accidentally fell, from there we began to have a bit of conversation.I: I see, so in way, you don’t have a problem conversing with them, you do have the confidence. 61
    • Y: Yes.I: So that means when people talk bad about you for using English in public, you wouldn’t care what they say right?Y: Sometimes I would feel shy, but other times I think I can manage myself to disregard that feeling.I: What about video games that you play? What is the title of the game?Y: Warcraft with subgames such as Dota, a strategy-based game.I: Ok, it sounds interesting, in which section of the game does the use of English come into play?Y: In Warcraft, we have a single player and multiplayer. The multi one we can use LAN or internet. I usually use the internet to play with others. If I happen to play with Indonesian players, then I would use either English or bahasa, but of course when I meet other players, I must use English when communicating with them.I: Ok, what about the articles you read on the net?Y: I normally browse for magazines, comics, or when I have freer time I would look for history-related articles.I: So all this are self-initiated right? Not assignments from your teacher?Y: No, of course not.I: What are the comic titles you read?Y: Most of them are anime.I: I see, but wouldn’t you also able to find the translated version?Y: Yes, but they are often released late. So I prefer, the original version.I: Is it difficult to read comics in English?Y: I don’t think so, because they rarely use difficult words, and even if there are it is easy to understand just by looking at the picture.I: Ok, I think that’s all. Thank you for your kind cooperation.Y: OK. 62
    • APPENDIX IEXAMPLE OF DAILY ACTIVITY JOURNAL Adapted and adopted from a study by Chausanachoti (2009). 63