This study investigated students' speaking strategies during online learning due to COVID-19. The researchers analyzed students' performances on three speaking tasks using different learning strategies: memory, cognitive, and compensation. They found significant differences in students' scores based on the strategy used, with memory strategies resulting in better scores than cognitive strategies and compensation strategies producing better scores than memory strategies. Students' quality of presentation and ability to respond to questions were most influenced by the strategies. The researchers concluded learning strategies have a significant impact on students' speaking performances.

1. INVESTIGATING
STUDENTS’ SPEAKING STRATEGIES
DURING THE BREAKOUT OF COVID 19
By:
Cucu Sutarsyah, Hery Yufrizal,. Huzairin
Universitas Lampung
.

2. BACKGROUND
The outbreak of Covid 19 has influenced almost all
aspects of human’s life.
Children could no longer go to school, teachers
stay at home
Virtual class as an alternative learning activities
through on line interaction.
The students learn and work from home and
accomplish speaking tasks through online
This situation demands creativity from the
lecturers to make sure that the institutional
objectives can be met.

3. This research deals with investigating the differences and
similarities in students’ performances in performing three
different learning tasks
memory strategies: strategies help learners
store and retrieve new information,
cognitive strategies: it enables the learners to
understand and produce new language by
many different means,
compensation strategies: strategies that aid
learners in overcoming knowledge gaps and
continuing to communicate authentically.

4. (1) Finding out there is any significant difference in
students’ speaking performance taught through three
different speaking strategies;
(2) finding out which learning strategies produced
better speaking accuracy and fluency;
(3) finding out what students perceive on their speaking
performance during accomplishing the speaking
tasks
THE OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

5. THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Language learning strategies are specific actions taken by the
learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable , more self-
directed, more effective and more transferable to new situation
(Oxford, 1990).
Strategy refers to the procedure or the techniques that a person
follows to achieve a required goal. The teacher should be aware of
various learning strategies and accordingly apply it in his /her
teaching.
Learning will be more productive when teachers/students are conscious of
the learning strategies they are going to apply in the language class.

6. CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
RUBIN (1987) LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES ARE CLASSIFIED INTO THREE
MAIN GROUPS (O‟MALLEY AND CHAMOT, 1990), RUBIN (1987)
learning strategies;
includes directly
related to learning
(cognitive) or those
which indirectly
involve the learning
process
(metacognitive):
clarification, practice,
memorizing, and
monitoring
communication
strategies, the
focus is on the
process of
participating in a
conversation and
getting meaning
across or clarifying
the speaker‟s
intention, etc.
social strategies;
those activities
learners engage in
which provide them
opportunities to
practice their
knowledge and
skills.

7. OXFORD (1990, P. 14-16) DIFFERENTIATES LANGUAGE LEARNING
STRATEGIES INTO SIX GROUPS:
• strategies that help
learners store and
retrieve new
information,
memory
strategies
• enable learners to
understand and
produce new
language by many
different means
cognitive
strategies
• aid learners in
overcoming
knowledge gaps
and continuing to
communicate
authentically,
compensation
strategies
• help develop self-
confidence,
affective
strategies
• help learners to
regulate their own
cognitive abilities
and to focus, plan,
and evaluate their
progress
metacognitive
strategies
• provide increased
interaction and
more empathetic
understanding.
social
strategies

8. ACCURACY AND FLUENCY
accuracy is the ability
to produce correct
sentences using correct
grammar and
vocabulary of both
written and spoken
Fluency activities will help
students to express
themselves in English.
They pay more attention to
meaning and context and
are less concerned with
grammatical errors.

9. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IN ESL
Communication Strategies
(Nakatani,2006)
Achievement or
compensatory strategies
where a student tries
different solutions in order to
achieve working
communication,
Reduction or avoidance
strategies where a student
gives up when the first
attempt on communication
fails.

10. THE METHOD
RESEARCH DESIGN:
Quasi-experimental research designs, like
experimental designs, test causal hypotheses.

11. THE SUBJECTS
• THE SUBJECTS OF THE RESEARCHARE STUDENTSWHO ARE ENROLLEDAS
PARTICIPANTSAT ‘INTERMEDIATESPEAKINGSUBJECT AT THEUNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG,
CONSISTINGOF 17 FEMALE AND 8 MALE STUDENTS.WITHAGESOF 19-21 YEARS OLD.

12. RESEARCH PROCEDURE
Treatment
Data
Compilation
Data
analysis
Reporting
phase

13. EVALUATING ORAL PERFORMANCES
THERE ARE FIVE CRITERIA TO EVALUATE ORAL
PERFORMANCES IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
(YUFRIZAL (2020)
1. Quality of
presentation
3. Language
Use
5. Mastery of
subject matter
4. Media use
2. Responding
to questions

14. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The Areas of
the Result
Finding if there is any
significant difference
in students’ speaking
scores taught
through three
different speaking
strategies,
finding out which
learning strategies
produced better
speaking accuracy
and fluency
finding out what
students perceive on
their speaking
performance during
accomplishing the
speaking tasks.

15. The result of speaking scores on three learning strategies
No. Interval Mem
ory
Cogni
tive
Compens
ation
1 82 – 90 - 6 4
2 73 – 81 - 14 11
3 64 – 72 12 5 10
4 55 – 63 9 - -
5 45 – 54 4 - -
Correlations
Memory cognitive Compensation
Memory
Pearson Correlation 1 ,656** ..562**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 .003
N 25 25 25
Cognitive
Pearson Correlation ,656** 1 .833**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 .000
N 25 25 25
Compensation
Pearson Correlation ,562** ,833** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,003 ,000
N 25 25 25
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
There is a positive significant correlation between students’ scores of speaking between
memory strategy and cognitive strategy (,656**) .
There is a positive significants correlation between memory strategy and compensation
strategy (.562**).
There is also positive significant correlation between cognitive strategy and
compensation strategy (.833)

16. Comparison Analysis
In comparison analyses, the study compares the students’ scores in three
learning situations: the use of memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and
compensation strategies.
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t Df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Pair 1
memory -
cognitive
-16,68000 5.02262 1.00452
-
16.60
5
24 .000
Pair 2
memory -
compensation
-14,00000 7.54983 1.50997 -9.246 24 .000
Pair 3
cognitive -
compensation
2,68000 444147 .88829 3.017 24 .006
There is a significant diffference between the students’ speaking scores in memory
strategy and cognitive strategy (t-value = 16.0).
There is a significant difference between the students’ speaking scores in memory
strategy and compensation strategy (t-value = 9.24).
Finally, There is a significant difference between the students’ speaking scores in
cognitive strategy and compensation strategy (t-value = 3.01.

17. Analysis on Speaking performances
Students’ performances were measured in five aspects:
quality of presentation (QP), responding to questions (RQ),
language use (LU), media use (MU) and mastery of subject
(MS). One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
T df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
Difference
QP 17.170 24 .000 3.88000
RQ 11.947 24 .000 2.92000
LU 14.715 24 .000 2.56000
MU 19.553 24 .000 4.12000
MS 14.462 24 .000 2.32000
1. There is a significant difference in the students’ responses to quality of
presentation wth a t-value of 17.17 and mean difference of 3.88.
2. There is also a significant difference in the students’ ability to respond to questions with a t-
value of 11.97 and mean difference of 2.92.
3. There is a significant different in the students’ language use wth a t-value of 14. 71 and mean
difference of 2. 56.
4. There is a significant difference in media use with a t-value of 4. 12 and mean difference of
19. 55.
5. There is significant difference in the mastery of subject with a t-value of 14. 46 and mean
difference of 2. 32.

18. the analysis of variant (ANOVA) of the speaking measures on the students’
performance on cognitive strategy
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
QP *
COG
Between Groups 31,673 13 2.436 6432 .002
Within Groups 4,167 11 .379
Total 35,840 24
RQ *
COG
Between Groups 18,757 13 1.443 2.241 .094
Within Groups 7,083 11 .644
Total 25,840 24
LU *
COG
Between Groups 7,167 13 .551 .887 .586
Within Groups 6,833 11 .621
Total 14,000 24
MU *
COG
Between Groups 14,557 13 1.120 1.019 .494
Within Groups 12,083 11 1.098
Total 26,640 24
MS *
COG
Between Groups 6,207 13 .477 .485 .892
Within Groups 10,833 11 ..985
Total 17,040 24
Table above reveals students’ performances in cognitive strategy activities. The table
shows that there is a significant influence of quality of presentation on the students with
cognitive strategiesin with an F value of 6.4.
there is a relatively influence of Responding to questions (RQ) to students’ cognitive
strategies in language use, media use and mastery of subject on cognitive strategies.

19. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the students’ memory
strategies and five writing measurements of quality of
presentation, responding to questions, language use, media use and
mastery of subject in memory
ANOVA Table
Sum of
Squares
Df Mean Square F Sig.
QP * MEM
Between Groups 31,673 13 2.436 6.432 .002
Within Groups 4,167 11 .379
Total 35,840 24
RQ * MEM
Between Groups 18,757 13 1.443 2.241 ..094
Within Groups 7,083 11 .644
Total 25,840 24
LU * MEM
Between Groups 7,167 13 ,551 .887 . 586
Within Groups 6,833 11 ,621
Total 14,000 24
MU * MEM
Between Groups 14,557 13 1.120 1.019 .494
Within Groups 12,083 11 1.098
Total 26,640 24
MS * MEM
Between Groups 6,207 13 .477 .485 .892
Within Groups 10,833 11 .985
Total 17,040 24

20. The table shows that there is a significant influence of quality
of presentation on the students’ performance in memory
strategy activities with an F value of 6.4.
There is a relatively influence of Responding to questions (RQ)
to students’ performances in memory strategy activities.
There is no significant effect of language use, media use and
mastery of subject in memory strategy activities

21.  The data show that there is a relatively influence of quality
of presentation (QP) and Responding to questions (RQ) on
the students’ performance in compensation strategy
activities with an F value of 0.072 and 0.122 on students’
mastery of challenge based learning activity
 There is no significant influences among factors of
language use, media use and mastery of subject in
compensation strategy activities

22. DISCUSSION AND FINDING
THERE ARE FOUR MOST IMPORTANT FINDINGS FROM THE CURRENT STUDY.
there is a significant difference of students’
achievement based on the learning strategies
applied.
that there is a significant difference between the students’ speaking scores in
memory strategy and cognitive strategy (t-value = 16. 60). This means that students
who applied memory strategy get better achievement than while they applied
cognitive strategy.
the application of compensatory strategy
results in better score than the memory
strategy (t-value = 9. 24).
the application of memory strategy resulted in
better score than cognitive strategy (t-value =
3.01).

23. DISCUSSION AND FINDING
 The results from memory strategy show that there is a significant
impact of memory strategy on Language Use and Mastery of the
subject.
 There is a significant difference in the students’ ability to respond to
questions with a t value of 11.97 and mean difference of 2.92.
 there is a significant difference in the students’ language use with a
t-value of 14.71 and mean difference of 2.56.
 that there is a significant defference in media use with a t-value of
4.12 and mean difference of 19. 55.
 that there is significant difference in the mastery of subject with a t-
value of 14. 46 and mean difference of 2. 32.

24. DISCUSSION AND FINDING
 The result of these calculations also reveal interesting researh phenomena.
particularly in the ability of advanced students’ ability to process
information while learning language is still the main focus
 The second trait in students’ oral performances is the ability to respond to
quesions (RQ). This ability is important because one of the main
problems with question and answer sessions is that the presenter’s nerves
frequently force an inappropriate response.
 The third trait in the students’ oral performance is language Use trait (LU).
In this aspect the students’ performance was judged based on the
appropriateness of the langauge they use.

25. DISCUSSION AND FINDING
 The fourth trait in the students' ability in media use. Media
used is defined as “the sum of information and entertainment
media taken in by an individual or group”. The data reveal
that there is a significant defference in media use with a t-
value of 4. 12 and mean difference of 19. 55
 The fifth trait in the students’ oral performance is mastery of
subject matter (MS).
 The results of the calculation reveal that there is a significant
defference in mastery of subject with a t-value of 14. 46 and
mean difference of 2. 32.

26. CONCLUSION
1. There is a significant difference in students’ performance based on the
students’ learning strategies. There is a significant difference between
the students’ achievement in learning three students’ learning
strategies. Students’ achievement in memory strategies differed
significantly with students’ achievement in cognitive strategies.
2. There is significant difference in students’ achievement through
cognitive strategies and compensation strategies. This result shows
different performances of the students in accomplishing the task
3. From 5 values of learning: quality of presentation (QP), responding to
questions (RQ), language use (LU), media use (MU) and mastery of
subject MS), there are significant impacts of each aspect toward
students’ performances in learning.