16.54%
11.65%14.82% 13.70%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
127 5.0 CONCLUSION
Firstly, based on the first research question, an important finding of the study was that most students used pronunciation learning strategies in their pronunciation learning and they used them quite occasionally. It is noticed that after a few years of learning English in the previous schools, these students more or less have had their own strategies to deal with English pronunciation. The findings also indicated that in general the use of memory strategies and affective strategies were the highest of all the pronunciation learning strategies, followed by compensation strategies, social strategies, metacognitive, and cognitive strategies. Compared to the previous studies, the results were different from other findings discussed in literature review such as of Szyszka (2015), Eckstein (2007), Rokoszewska (2012), Erbay et al. (2016), and of Akyol (2013). In the light of findings, it could be interpreted that the students were rather dependent on memorizing words and its sounds. They have not used strategies which are more favored by advanced learner such as cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Although they were quite clearly aware of the significance of the practiceoutside classroom, they still had the tendency to rely on teachers in improving pronunciation.
On the other hand, the findings of the second research question indicated that most of the participants appreciated pronunciation learning strategies in their pronunciation learning. They imitated their teachers’ pronunciation in classroom and considered it as a model. This explains the reason they did not attempt to understand phonetic symbols or do pronunciation exercises when they were not required. Although they appreciated the frequent practice outside the classroom, the data also showed that the students were not well aware of utilizing pronunciation learning strategies to practice pronouncing words. Therefore, it is recommended for teachers and researchers to continue studying about pronunciation learning strategies to suggest more useful strategies that can be beneficial to language learners as “the ultimate goal of investigating pronunciation learning strategies is to understand the way they may relate to successful pronunciation learning and to improve pronunciation instruction” (Peterson, 2000, p. 18).
In regards to the students’ opinions on the importance of pronunciation learning strategies as compared to the other factors affecting pronunciation learning, the participants mostly agreed that pronunciation learning strategies contributed to English pronunciation learning success and that it was important to use pronunciation learning strategies in order to improve and develop their pronunciation practice. Accordingly, there is a significant need to increase students’ awareness on strategy use and simultaneously encourage them to use a variety of strategies. Also, the researchers suggested that pronunciation should be considered as an important component of English teaching curricula and should also be treated as a high-priority goal in language teaching and learning.
Apart from the curriculum development, teachers are supposed to instruct students to make careful choices on strategies that are useful to their development and improvement. They may find it important to incorporate learning strategy instruction to the degree that may be beneficial to beginners’ level language classes. This can be done by giving instructions through handouts, class discussions, and classroom pronunciation practice. Pronunciation progress is gradual and the pronunciation mastery does not happen overnight. Therefore, it is advisable that teachers play an important role in helping learners develop ways of improving their pronunciation and continuously shaping their attitude toward the importance of pronunciation.
128 REFERENCES
Akyol, T. (2013). A study on identifying pronunciation learning strategies of Turkish EFL learners.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1456-1462.
Brown, M. (2008). Good language learner and pronunciation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Calka, A. (2011). Pronunciation learning strategies – identification and classification. In M.
Pawlak, E. Waniek-Klimczak, & J. Majer (Eds.), Speaking and instructe dforeign language acquisition (pp. 149-168). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York: Longman.
Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eckstein, G. T. (2007). A correlation of pronunciation learning strategies with spontaneous English pronunciation of adult ESL learners. Retrieved on 10 May 2016, from http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ETD/id/1096
Ellis, R. (1997a). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Erbay, S., Kayaoglu, N. M., Onay, E. (2016). Understanding Pronunciation Learning Strategy Use:
a Vignette Analysis. Retrieved on 3 March 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.16.spi.1.6
Gilbert, J. B. ( 2008). Teaching Pronunciation: Using the Prosody Pyramid. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English Pronunciation. Harlow: Longman.
Meng, H., Tseng, C.-y., Kondo, M., Harrison, A. M., & Visceglia, T. (2009). Studying L2 suprasegmental features in asian Englishes: a position paper. Paper presented at the Interspeech.
Nguyen, Ngan Ha. (2013). Using Language Learning Strategies in Pronunciation Training for Non-English Major Students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved on 15 March 2016, from http://dl.ueb.edu.vn/bitstream/1247/10027/1/Using%20Language%20Learning%20Strate gies%20in%20Pronunciation%20Training.pdf
Nunan, D. (2008). Practical English Language Teaching: Reading. New York: McGraw Hill.
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Osburne, A. G. (2003). Pronunciation strategies of advanced ESOL learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41, 131–143
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York:
Newbury House.
Peterson, S. (2000). Pronunciation learning strategies: A first look (ED 450 599, FL 026 618).
Available from ERIC.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Rokoszewska, K. (2012). The influence of pronunciation learning strategies on mastering English vowels. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 391–413.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good learner” can tell us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51.
Rubin, J. (1989). How learner strategies can inform language teaching in Proceedings of LULTAC. Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education..
129 Schmitt, N. ( 1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Singer, J. (2006). Uncovering factors that influence English pronunciation of native Somali speakers. Hamline University, St. Paul, MN.
Szyszka, M. (2015). Good English Pronunciation Users and their Pronunciation Learning Strategies. Research in Language, 13(1), 93-106.
Tweedy, L. (2012). Discovering factors that influence English pronunciation of native Vietnamese speakers. ( MA thesis, Hamline University UT). Retrieved on 2 April 2016, from http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all/501
Varasarin, P. (2007). An action research study on pronunciation training, language learning strategies and speaking confidence (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University, Melbourne). Retrieved from http://vuir.vu.edu.au/15513/1/songprakun.pdf
Wei, M. (2006). A Literature review on strategies for teaching pronunciation. Retrieved on 15 March 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.library.vu.edu.au:80/science/journal/00220965
130
The Relationship between Parents’ Socio Economic Status and English Achievement of the Undergraduate Students
A.F. Nurul1 and T. Kuntum2
1 English Education Study Program, Tamansiswa University Palembang,Indonesia nurul@unitaspalembang.ac.id
2English Education Study Program, Tamansiswa University Palembang, Indonesia kuntum@unitaspalembang.ac.id
KEYWORDS: Parents’ SES, English Achievement, Undergraduate Students
ABSTRACT
Parents’ Socio Economic Status (SES) plays an important role in teaching and learning process. The aims of this study are to investigate: (a) the correlation between parents’ SES(total) of the undergraduate students of English Education Study Programs in Palembang and the students’
English achievement; (b) the correlation among the factors of parents’ SES of the undergraduate students of English Education Study Programs in Palembang and the students’ English achievement. This is a correlational study conducted to describe and measure the degree of association between parents’ SES and English achievement. The populations involved in this study are the second, fourth, and sixth semester students from Sriwijaya, Muhammadiyah, and Tamansiswa Universities in Palembang. Parents’ Socioeconomic Status questionnaire (SESp) is administered to 103 students. Students’ English achievement is gained from their Grade Point Average (GPA). Positive significant correlations exist between parents’ SES and English achievement, and between parents’ SES factors (education, occupation, and income) and English achievement in the analyses of the total sample in the universities. Parents’ SES(total) and the three factors have statistically significant correlations (r = 0.273, r = 0.342, r = 0.252 and r= 0.289 respectively) with students’ English achievement. The best predictor of students’ English achievement is parents’ education (11.7%). Parents’ SES and each factor of Parents’ SES(total) affect their children’s English achievement. It is implied that parents whose SES is in the high level tend to have children with high English achievement. Among the other two factors, parents’ education gives the highest contibution to the students’ English achievement.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
English is one of the crucial subjects that the students have to be good at in order to succeed academically. In fact, English learning is beneficial for college students as it can keep them informed with the latest development in their majors and prepare them for future jobs (Wang, 2008). However, language mastery is not an instant outcome of teaching and learning language, including English and learners’ achievement will vary according to a variety of factors. The internal and external factors, for example, tend to influence the learners’ English achievement. Ellis (1994) mentions that there are three kinds of factors for successful second language acquisition. One of them includes social factor, which is parents’ socioeconomic status (Parents’ SES).
131 As a matter of fact, there are always many problems faced by students to accomplish the target of being successful English learners. According to Annex (2010) in PISA 2009 Ranking, eleven countries, including some Asian countries and some Europe countries, have lower reading achievements based on the OECD average. There are no statistically significant differences between those countries reading achievement with OECD average (493). For example, Ireland’s reading achievement average is 496 and Chinese Taipei is 495. Unfortunately, the average of Indonesia reading achievement is far from the average of those countries which is only 402.
Furthermore, Hadriana, Ismail, and Mahdum (2013) identify that English achievements of 120 students from 10 secondary high schools in Indonesia are in the level of medium low.
Similarly, Efrizal (2012) points out that the speaking achievement of the students of the Islamic School in Bengkulu is in very low level. 32% of the students’ scores are in low and 36% of the students’ have failed. In addition, it is proven that 57.87% students have satisfactory English achievement based on the data found in the sample of this current study. Therefore, it can be concluded that English achievement of the learners in Indonesia is still in the level of medium-low.
According to Ewumi (2012) and Hamid (2011), parents’ SES is one of the factors that contributes to students’ English achievement as well as influences the success and failure of the learners’ English achievement. Parents’ SES which includes parents’ education, job, attention, and income, is considered as one of the demographic factors that influences the quality of students’
performance as well as their English achievement (Akram & Ghani, 2013). Hamid (2011)states that students who come from high SES tend to have higher academic achievement compared to those who come from low SES. Farooq, Chaudhry, Shafiq and Berhanun (2011) prove the effects of SES in their study. The high and average socioeconomic levels of the parents affect the students’
performance more than the low socioeconomic level of the parents. In addition, parents who were well educated tend to have children who perform better compared to those children whose parents were less educated or illiterate (Memon, Joubish, & Khurram, 2010). It is clear that parents’
socioeconomic status of students highly influences their children academic achievement.
The correlation between parents’ socioeconomic status and English achievement can be seen from some argumentations of previous researchers that argue the students’ who come from low SES will achieve lower compared to those who is in the high SES family. Akhram and Ghani (2013) describe that the learners who are not given equal opportunities due to their parents’ SES, face learning inequalities in their language learning. As a result, “students from lower socioeconomic groups acquire language at a slower rate than students who belong to high socioeconomic groups”
(p. 409). In addition, Farooq et al. (2011) point out that “the socioeconomic status of students affects the quality of their academic performance” (p.2). These researchers added that “educated parents can provide such an environment that suits best for academic success of their children”
(p.4). In line with Hamid’s (2011) belief that parents who have high level of education are able to decide what they should do to meet their high expectations of their children’s education and future career. On the other hand, parents who have low level education lack knowledge to achieve their expectations of their children.
SES also determines how parents perceive education. Ewumi (2012) argues that middle and higher income parents view education as job that should be controlled and encouraged by both teachers and parents, while low income parents fully view education as teachers’ job and responsibility. As a result, parents’ who come from middle and higher income automatically encourage and motivate their children in learning. Furthermore, Hassan (2009) explains that the parents who have high professions will be able to support their childrens’ educational needs with their knowledge and income that affect their childrens’ academic achievement, while parents’ who have low professions tend to lack in knowledge and experience that is essential for their children’s education. Similarly, Hamid (2011) explains that parents who have high professions have higher level of education than those who have low professions. He adds that high professions provide monthly salary and allow the parents to have socialization with other educated employers and gain positive values from the socialization that might affect their children’s academic achievement and education.
132 1.1 Objectives
The objectives of this study in particular are to investigate whether;
a. there is a significant correlation between parents’ socioeconomic status(total) of the undergraduate students of English Education Study Programs in Palembang and the students’ English achievement.
b. there is a significant correlation among the factors of parents’ socioeconomic status of the undergraduate students of English Education Study Programs in Palembang and the students’ English achievement.
1.2 Research Questions
a. Is there any significant correlation between parents’ socioeconomic status(total) of the undergraduate students of English Education Study Programs in Palembang and the students’ English achievement?
b. Is there any significant correlation among the factors of parents’ socioeconomic status of the undergraduate students of English Education Study Programs in Palembang and the students’ English achievement?
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Parents’ Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic status has been known widely as one of the factors that can affect students’
academic achievement and also their performance in learning (Memon et al., 2010). Furthermore, socioeconomic status refers to factors such as parents’ education, job, and income that influence home environment (Akram & Ghani, 2013). Similarly, Memon & Khurram mention that socioeconomic status represents a number of variables like education, occupation, income, gender status, beliefs, neighborhood, and community.
Many factors can be taken into account when the researchers analyze the parents’
socioeconomic status. Farooq et al. (2013) explain, “The socioeconomic status can be deliberated in a number of different ways; it is most often calculated by looking at parental education, occupation, income, and facilities used by individuals separately or collectively” (p. 2). Similarly, Akram and Ghani (2013) explain that parents’ income, educational level and occupation are the determining measurement of the socioeconomic factor.
The factors (education, occupation, and income) can be divided into some categories.
UNESCO (2012) divides education into eight International Standard Classifications of Education (ISCED), namely ISCED level 0 that covers early childhood education, ISCED level 1 that covers primary education, ISCED level 2 that covers lower secondary education, ISCED level 3 that covers upper secondary education, ISCED level 4 that covers post-secondary non-tertiary education, ISCED level 5 that covers short-cycle tertiary education, ISCED level 6 that covers bachelor’s or equivalent level, ISCED level 7 that covers master’s or equivalent level, and ISCED level 8 that covers doctoral or equivalent level.
Furthermore, Ganzeboom, de Graaf, & Treiman (1992) classify eleven categories of occupation, namely, those who have never worked outside the home for pay, small business owner, clerk, service or sales worker, skilled agricultural or fishery worker, craft or trade worker, plant or
133 machine operator, general laborers, corporate manager or senior official, professional, technician or associate professional.
In addition, parents’ income is categorized into four categories which are not at all well-off, not very well-off, average, somewhat well off, and very well-off adapted from Progress in International Reading Literacy Study financial status questionnaire for parents (PIRLS, 2005). The scale of parents’ income is categorized based on minimum wage per month by Sumatra province (rupiah) which is Rp 1.350.000 and monthly average of wage/salary/income of employee of south Sumatra province (rupiah) which is Rp1.794.051 (Statistics Indonesia, 2013).
2.2 English Achievement
English achievement has a strong relation with academic success or academic achievement.
“Academic success or academic achievement refers to academic performance which is assessed in the United States by Grade Point Average (GPA). “GPA is cumulated across academic subject areas and over semesters, and thereby provides a fairly robust measure of success in university (Coutinho, 2007, p.39). Therefore, English achievement refers to English performance which assessed by Grade Point Average (GPA).
When students are in learning situation, they will have certain objective or goals that they are going to accomplish at the end of their study. Coutinho (2007) explains that “Whenever students are in learning environments, they are believed to have certain goals towards learning, referred to as achievement goals” (p.39). Then, whenever they are believed to have certain goals toward learning English, it is referred to as English achievement.
Achievement is determined in many ways by researchers. Ketabi (2012) chooses Michigan English Language Proficiency Test (MELPT) as the determination of students’ achievement.
Meanwhile, the grades obtained by the students in the final English examination of the semester is used by Wang (2008) as an indication of English achievement.
2.3 Correlations between Parents’ Socioeconomic Status and English Achievement
The correlation between parents’ socioeconomic status and English achievement can be seen from some argumentations of previous researchers that argue those students’ who come from lower level family will achievement lower compared to those who is in the high level family. Akhram and Ghani (2013) describe that the learners who are not given the equal opportunities due to their parents’ socioeconomic status, face learning inequalities in their language learning. As a result,
“students from lower socioeconomic groups acquire language at a slower rate than students who belong to high socioeconomic groups” (p. 409). In addition, Farooq et al. (2011) point out that “the socioeconomic status of students affects the quality of their academic performance” (p.2). These researchers added that “educated parents can provide such an environment that suits best for academic success of their children” (p.4).
Hamid (2011) explains that parents who have high level of education are clear about their responsibility to meet their high expectations of their children’s education and future career. On the other hand, parents who have low level of education lack in knowledge to achieve their expectations of their children. Socioeconomic status also determines how parents’ perceive education. Ewumi (2012) argues that middle and higher income parents view education as job that should be controlled and encouraged by both teachers and parents. Meanwhile, low income parents fully view education as teachers’ job and responsibility. As a result, parents’ who come from middle and higher income automatically encourage and motivate their children in learning.
3.0 METHODOLOGY