LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY HIGHER AND LOWER ACHIEVING STUDENTS IN LEARNING SPEAKING

The objectives of this research were to find out the types of language learning strategies employed by higher and lower achieving students on speaking skill and to find out the impacts of language learning strategies employed by them. A questionnaire was used as the instrument of this study. The sample of this research were 82 students who were chosen based on the criteria: (1) the students already passed all the Speaking I to IV classes, (2) the students consist of higher achieving students (score ≥B) and lower achieving students (score ≤C), and (3) the students allowed the researcher to obtain their speaking scores. Thus, purposive sampling was used here. In this research, the researcher used Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) by Oxford (2003) to determine the students’ language learning strategy. The result revealed that the higher achieving students used memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies in learning speaking. On the other hand, the lower achieving students generally did not use the learning strategies in their learning activities. Therefore, as the impact of this learning habit, they do not possess a good speaking ability and achieve low scores in speaking class.


INTRODUCTION
Speaking is one of the productive skills to be mastered in English. In Indonesia, English is considered as a foreign language (EFL) which makes mastering speaking skill a challenging task for Indonesian students. This problem is felt by English Education Department students who only get a few opportunities to communicate in English outside the class, thus hindering the improvement of their speaking skills. Some features have to be considered in conducting speaking, such as pronunciation, vocabulary, structures, etc. Those aspects are very important to be mastered so that listeners can understand what someone is saying. Brown (2004) stated that speaking has five components namely; fluency, vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and comprehension. Thus, students are expected to pay attention to these five components to speak fluently and minimize communication errors.
To overcome their difficulties in mastering speaking skills, students need to employ appropriate learning strategies to support their effort in learning. Wenden and Rubin (1987) said that learning strategies refer to the various operations used by learners to master their learning material. Good learning strategies will lead someone to good achievement.
A well-known expert in the field of language learning strategies, Oxford (2003), admitted that language learning strategies help students to learn a language in a good way. Thus, language learning strategies have a very important role in learning English.
Some other experts in this field have also identified language learning strategies into various classifications. For instance, O'Malley and Chamot (1990) identified three language learning strategies namely: cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social strategies. On the other hand, Oxford (1990) outlined six strategies that include: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, memory-related strategies, affective strategies, social strategies, and compensatory strategies. Oxford further stated that the six strategies have different impacts on the learning outcome. Therefore, which learning strategies that selected to be used will affect the learning achievement. She also added that the implementation of suitable language learning strategies will make learners comfortable during the learning so that they are able to achieve a satisfactory achievement.
Based on the preliminary study by the researcher at the English Education Department of UIN Ar-Raniry, Banda Aceh in March 2020, the sixth semester students who got higher scores (A-B) used different strategies than those with lower scores. Some researchers have explored learning strategies employed by high achieving students and the most frequently used learning strategies by junior high school students. Hesti (2014) found that almost all students employed the learning strategies proposed by O' Malley and Chamot (1990) in learning speaking. Another research conducted by Lestari (2015) found that the students used all of the learning strategies outlined by Oxford (1990). Furthermore, it was found that the fourth and the sixth semester students used the metacognitive strategies most frequently. Meanwhile, the least frequent strategy employed by the fourth semester students was the memory strategies; so did the sixth semester students.
Both studies showed that learning strategies play a significant role in the learning process, including for language learners. Instead of only focused on the most and the least learning strategies used, this research also going to find out the impact of the certain language learning strategies employed.

Classification of Language Learning Strategies
Language learning strategies refer to specific behaviors, actions, techniques, or steps which are implemented by language learners as a method in acquiring language (Oxford, 2003). The experts of language learning strategies gave similar ideas about the classification of language learning strategies. O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, and Küpper (1985) claimed that language learning strategies are divided into three main categories: (1) metacognitive, (2) cognitive, and (3) social affective. Cognitive strategies are used with information to enhance learning; metacognitive involve processes through which a learner plans for learning, monitoring comprehension; social/affective strategies entail interaction with another person or ideational control over the effect.
In similar tones, Oxford (1990) outlined the most widely used classification which divided the strategies into two main categories, direct and indirect strategies. The classification of language learning strategies provided by Oxford (2003) is described subsequently.

Memory strategies
Memory strategies help students process information in the memory and call them back when they are needed. It can be done by using visuals to remember something, drawing a diagram of concept as mapping, using body movement, memorizing vocabulary by using keywords, or remembering new language information according to its sound.

Cognitive strategies
Cognitive strategies help students manipulate the language material directly. In doing this, the students learn a language through reasoning, analyzing, taking-note, making-summary, synthesizing, making-outline, developing stronger schemas (knowledge structures) by reorganizing information, settings, and using structures and sounds formally.

Compensation strategies
Compensation strategies help learners make up for the missing information or knowledge. It enables the learners to keep speaking and writing even if they lack the knowledge. The learners can guess from the context in listening and reading by using synonyms or explaining the object with some supportive information.

Metacognitive strategies
Metacognitive strategies help learners to control their cognitive. The learners may identify their own learning style preference, arrange the plan of learning, and evaluate their learning.

Affective strategies
Affective strategies help learners to manage their emotions, attitudes, motivations, and values. It can be done by lowering the level of anxiety by using deep breathing, music, and laughter and doing self-encouragement to minimize some feelings like being afraid of making mistakes or ashamed of using English.

Social strategies
Social strategies facilitate learning by interacting with others. The learners can ask questions to get verification, cooperate with native speakers, and explore cultural and social norms.
From all the reviews of language learning strategies proposed by several experts, the researcher decided to use the classification of language learning strategies by Oxford.

Higher and Lower Achieving Students
The characteristics of high achieving students by Bainbridge (2015) become the standard in selecting the object in this research. Bainbridge defined that "high achieving students are those who achieve a goal. In school, a high achieving student would be a student who gets high marks, good grades".
In UIN Ar-Raniry, the marks are categorized as A, B, C, D, and E. The A score ranges from 86-100; B from 72-85; C from 60-71, D from 50-59; E from 0-49. In line with what has been stated by Bainbridge (2015) that high achievers are the ones who score good grades, this research defines the higher achieving students as students that score ≥B. In other words, the higher achieving students are the ones that managed to score A or B.
On the other hand, Wen and Johnson (1997) defined low achievers as learners who need longer time in learning English and achieved lower scores. Therefore, the lower achieving students in this research are the students who score ≤C, i.e. C, D, and E.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research was descriptive quantitative research. The data were gathered from a questionnaire completed by the participants. A detailed description of the research method is provided in the following subsections.

Population and Sample
The population of this research was the fifth-semester students of the English Education Department of UIN Ar-Raniry, Banda Aceh. The total number is 232 students which already passed all of the three-level speaking courses. Purposive sampling was implemented because the sample must meet the specified qualifications so that the data obtained is in accordance with the research objectives. The students were chosen based on the criteria: (1) the students already passed all the Speaking I to IV classes, (2) the students consist of higher achieving students (score ≥B) and lower achieving students (score ≤C), and (3) the students allowed the researcher to obtain their speaking scores.

Research Instrument
The data were collected using a Linear-type questionnaire of language learning strategies taken from Strategies Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) that was grouped into six major categories containing a total of 28 strategy items for speaking skills which were adopted from Oxford (2003).

Technique of Data Collection
A questionnaire was used to find out the types of language learning strategies employed by the students who got higher scores and lower scores in the learning process. The researcher decided whom the higher and lower achieving students are by considering their speaking scores that were given by the students on their questionnaire sheet. The questionnaire was delivered to the students using Google Form.

Technique of Data Analysis
To analyze the data, the researcher categorized the higher and lower achieving students after finding out their respective scores. The data obtained from the Google Form questionnaires were analyzed descriptively to outline the strategies used by the students. The following table is the distribution of frequency for language learning strategies by Oxford (1990).

Language Learning Strategies Used by Higher Achieving Students
Based on the students' scores analysis, it was found that there were 78 students who got high scores. In this research, the higher achieving students refer to the students whose speaking scores were A and B. The range of their scores is between 72 to 100. The frequency of language learning strategies used by higher achieving students is tabulated in Table 2.  Table 2 shows that high achieving students used all of learning strategies in learning speaking, with metacognitive strategies as the highest. However, the students usually also used other strategies in learning strategies. Furthermore, the results of the questionnaires were calculated, and the use of memory strategies results are provided in Table 3.  Table 3 presents the students' mean use of memory strategies. It refers to questions number 1 to 4. The students used four memory strategies in this study. The highest mean score is the strategy number 1 and number 2. Furthermore, the students' use of cognitive strategies is also analyzed by using the mean use value, and the result is shown in Table 4.  Table 4 shows that the students used six strategies in this study. The highest mean score is shown by strategy number 7 followed by strategy number 6. All of those mean scores refer to the high category which means that the higher achieving students usually used a high category of cognitive strategies in learning speaking. In addition, the students' use of compensation strategies is also analyzed by using the mean use value, as presented in Table 5.  Table 5 shows that the students used three memory strategies in this study with strategy number 13, i.e. compensation strategies, as the highest in learning speaking. The use of metacognitive strategies is also analyzed by using the mean use value, with the following results.  Table 6 presents the students' mean use of metacognitive strategies. The highest mean score is shown by strategy number 16 followed by strategy number 15. All of those mean scores refer to the high category which means that the higher achieving students usually used a high category of metacognitive strategies in learning speaking. In addition, the students' use of affective strategies is also analyzed by using the mean use value, as presented in Table 7.  Table 7 presents the students' mean use of affective strategies, with strategy number 21 as the highest, followed by strategy number 22. All of those mean scores refer to the high category which means that the higher achieving students usually used a high category of affective strategies in learning speaking. Furthermore, the students' use of social strategies is also analyzed by using the mean use value, as shown in the following table.  Table 8 presents the higher achieving students' mean use of social strategies. It shows that strategy number 25 received the highest mean score, followed by strategy number 28 and strategy number 23 All of those mean scores refer to the high category which means that the higher achieving students usually used a high category of social strategies in learning speaking.

Language Learning Strategies Used by the Lower Achieving Students
The mean calculation was applied to the data set containing the separate categories of language learning strategies. The lower achieving' preferences of the strategies (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, social) can be seen in the following table.  Table 9 presents the frequency of language learning strategies used by the lower achieving students in learning speaking. The data shows that lower achieving students used all of the learning strategies in learning speaking. However, the lower achieving students generally do not use the cognitive strategies in learning speaking. The lowest frequency used is the metacognitive strategies which means that the lower achieving students generally also did not use metacognitive strategies in learning speaking. Furthermore, the detailed mean use of language learning strategies used by the students on their responses to the SILL questionnaire is presented in the following table.  Table 10 presents the mean use of memory strategies by low achieving students. The students used four memory strategies in this study. All mean scores in Table 10 refer to the medium category which means that the higher achieving students usually used a medium category of memory strategies in learning speaking. In addition, the lower achieving students' use of cognitive strategies is also analyzed by using the mean use value, and the results are presented in Table 11.  Table 11 presents the lower students' mean use of cognitive strategies. The students used six strategies in this study. The highest mean score is shown by strategy number 8, followed by number 7 and number 9. This result suggests that the lower achieving students generally did not use cognitive strategies in learning speaking. Their use of compensation strategies is also analyzed by using the mean use value, and the results are presented below.

Medium
The highest mean score in Table 12 is strategy number 13 followed by strategy number 11. All of those mean scores in the table above refer to the medium category which means that the lower achieving students generally did not use compensation strategies in learning speaking. Furthermore, the analysis result of the use of metacognitive strategies is presented as follows.  Table 13 presents the lower achieving students' mean use of metacognitive strategies. The highest mean score is shown by strategy number 18 and number 14 followed by strategy number 15 and number 17. This result concludes that the lower achieving students generally did not use metacognitive strategies in learning speaking. The use of affective strategies is also analyzed by using the mean use value, the result is shown in Table 14.  Table 14 presents the students' mean use of affective strategies. The result, as shown in the table, shows that the lower achieving students generally did not use the medium category of affective strategies in learning speaking. The analysis results for the use of social strategies are presented as follows.  Table 15 presents the lower achieving students' mean use of social strategies. The results show that the lower achieving students generally did not use social strategies in learning speaking.

Discussions
The result of the higher achieving students' responses toward the SILL questionnaire shows that the students with a high score at UIN Ar-Raniry used memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies in learning speaking. The highest mean value is referred to the metacognitive strategies which mean that the higher achieving students usually used the metacognitive strategies in learning speaking. However, the students usually also used other learning strategies which were determined by the mean values. The mean value for memory (3.95), cognitive (3.97), compensation (4.14), affective (3.99,) and social (4.04) strategies is also determined as a high category. Hence, the higher achieving students at UIN Ar-Raniry reported high use of all the learning strategies.
The result of this research is in line with the result of a previous study from F. Salahshour, Sharifi, and N. Salahshour (2013). They showed that male and female students used meta-cognitive strategies more frequently in learning. It means that, in learning, students are like to try to find as many ways as they can to use their English, notice their own mistakes and use information to help them to be better, pay attention to someone who is speaking English, look for someone they can talk English to, and have clear goals for improving their language skills.
Meanwhile, the result of the lower achieving students' responses toward the SILL questionnaire shows that the lower achieving students used all of the learning strategies in learning speaking. It is showed by the mean use of the strategies with the highest mean value shown by the cognitive strategies (2.10). However, it is referred to as medium strategies which means that the lower achieving students generally do not use cognitive strategies in learning speaking. The lowest frequency is shown by metacognitive strategies which means that the lower achieving students generally also do not use metacognitive strategies in learning speaking. Thus, it can be concluded that the lower achieving students of UIN Ar-Raniry used medium strategies which means that they generally do not use learning strategies in learning speaking.
Furthermore, the students' responses toward every strategy show that the higher and lower achieving students used the same strategy in term of memory strategy. The highest mean for memory strategy refers to statement 1. However, the mean value of the usage shows a difference in terms of the category used between the higher achieving and the lower achieving students. The mean use of lower achieving students for statement 1 is 2.44 while the mean use of higher achieving students for statement 1 is 4.31. The mean use of lower achieving students refers to the medium category while the mean use of higher achieving students refers to the high category. It implies that the higher achieving students used the strategy in statement 1 more frequently than the lower achieving students.
The lower achieving and the higher achieving students also use the same strategy in terms of compensation strategy in which the mean use of statement 13 is the highest within both groups. The mean use of statement 13 for high achieving students is 4.24 and the mean use of statement 13 for lower achieving students is 1.80. However, based on the category, the higher achieving students categorized the use in the high category while the lower achieving refers to a medium category. It means that the high achieving students used strategy number 13 more frequently than the low achieving students.
Consequently, the students' responses toward the affective strategy also show that the low and high achieving students prefer using affective strategy 21. However, the mean use of high achiever students is 4.24 while the mean use of the lower achieving students is 2.75. This implies that the high achieving students used strategy 21 more frequently than the lower achieving students.
In addition, students' responses toward the social strategy also show that the lower achieving students and the high achieving students prefer using social strategy number 25. However, the mean use for lower achieving students for strategy number 25 is 2.44 which refers to the medium category. Meanwhile, the mean use of higher achieving students for social strategy number 25 is 4.29 which refers to the high category. It implies that the high achieving students use social strategy number 25 more frequently than the lower achieving students.
This result proved the theory by Oxford (2003) that admitted that language learning strategies are one of the main factors which help to determine how-and how well-our students learn a second or foreign language. Thus, language learning strategies play a very important role in learning English. The result of the higher achieving students' responses toward the SILL questionnaire in this research proved that the higher achieving students use all of the learning strategies in learning. It means that their high scores in the speaking test were influenced by their learning habit in which they take their effort in learning by using all of the learning strategies in order to improve their speaking ability.
The result of the higher achieving students in this research is similar to the result of previous research by Hesti (2014) about the learning strategies used by high proficiency students in learning oral skills at SMPN 3 Geger, East Java. The result showed that the students used all of the strategies proposed by O'Malley and Chamot. The students employed socio-affective, metacognitive, and cognitive strategies in developing their speaking skills. It implies that the higher achieving students have similar learning habits in which they tend to use all of the learning strategies in order to improve their learning outcomes.
The finding of this research is also in line with the research finding of a previous study by Lestari (2015) who reveals that FTIK students used all learning strategies that were outlined by Oxford (1990). It implies that, in learning a language, students need to apply learning strategies. However, the finding of the previous research is different from the result of this present research in which the low achiever students generally did not use any language learning strategies in learning speaking.
On the other hand, the result of the lower achieving students' responses toward the SILL questionnaire in this research proved that the lower achieving students generally do not use the learning strategies in learning. It means that their low scores in the speaking test are caused by their learning habit in which they do not use any learning strategies.

Conclusion
The result of this study proved that the high achieving students at UIN Ar-Raniry used memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies in learning speaking. The highest mean value is shown by the metacognitive strategies which means that the high achieving students usually used metacognitive strategies in learning speaking. However, the students also generally used other strategies in learning strategies which are determined by the mean values. The mean value for memory (3.95), cognitive (3.97), compensation (4.14), affective (3.99), and social (4.04) strategies is also determined as a high category. This implies that the higher achieving students used all of the language learning strategies in order to improve their speaking skills.
On the other hand, the lower achieving students generally did not use the learning strategies in their learning activities. It is showed by their responses in the questionnaire in which the highest mean value is shown to be the cognitive strategies (2.10). Consequently, it is regarded as medium strategies which means that the low achieving students generally do not use cognitive strategies in learning speaking. The lowest frequency is shown by the metacognitive strategies which means that the lower achieving students generally also do not use metacognitive strategies in learning speaking. In conclusion, the lower achieving students did not use any learning strategies in their learning activity.

Suggestions
The finding suggested that the usage of learning strategies is very important to achieve the goal in learning. It helps students to improve their speaking. It can be a solution for teachers to improve students' learning quality so that the students achieve better scores in learning. Thus, the researcher suggested English teachers to find their students' language learning strategies in order to design an interesting teaching and learning process that suits their students' learning strategies. Furthermore, teachers are suggested to help their students to use various language learning strategies to help students to learn independently. In addition, the researcher recommended other researchers to conduct similar research in the field of learners' language strategies in learning. The findings of this research are expected to be a starting point for further research in the field of learning in specific skills such as reading, writing, speaking, and listening.