The data collected from the questionnaire in the format of a Likert scale were first stored and coded in Excel 2019 on Windows 10 and then analyzed with the help of the software SPSS version 23. There are three sections categorized as A, B, and C.
The personal attributes of students in Section A were presented in tables to be coded in numbers and letters to construct personal profiles. The SPSS program was employed to analyze the Likert scale data for analysis in sections B and C. The questionnaire results were analyzed in terms of mean (M) and standard deviation (SD), and the internal consistency reliability was assessed by computing Cronbach’s alpha to find out the students’ attitudes towards metacognitive strategy training.
Results of opinions about learning and teaching English oral communication.
Related to the students’ attitudes towards the metacognitive strategy training, their general opinions on learning English oral communication performance are considered basic criteria that should be first explored in the questionnaire.
The importance of learning English Oral Communication
Figure 4.1 The importance of learning English Oral Communication
Looking at Figure 4.1, it is apparent that of the 22 EG students surveyed, 64%
indicated that learning English for oral communication is very important. The number of students who agreed on "slightly important" and "moderately important" was less than 10 percent, and no one denied its importance. It reflects the need for oral communication in English for most students.
The necessity of metacognitive strategy training
Figure 4.2 The necessity of metacognitive strategy training
Compared to the importance of learning English oral communication, from the data in figure 4.2, the response rate was 45% on "very necessary" and 23% on "necessary,"
which shows metacognitive strategy training from teachers was expected by all
76
students. 27% of participants assured the extreme necessity of metacognitive strategy training, and no one denied its necessity.
The overall feeling about the training
Figure 4.3 The overall feeling about the metacognitive strategy training
What is striking about the data in Figure 4.3 is that the total number of students who feel like the training in the three sections "I like it", "I like it very much", and "I like it very much" accounts for 95%. No one disliked the instruction, and only 4%
expressed disliking the training.
Reflection on the procedure of metacognitive strategy training on English oral communication
Based on the 5-phase procedure of the CALLA model for metacognitive strategy training, the EG students were deeply questioned regarding their attitudes towards the training.
In the data analysis described in the chapter, metacognitive strategies, including organizing, monitoring, and evaluation, were carried out in accordance with the model CALLA's five phases to investigate where they gained benefits or had any drawbacks after the training.
Regarding reliability, the alpha value of each main theme and the whole item is higher than 0.7, the value required for satisfactory reliability as suggested by George and Mallery (2003); see Table 4.7 below.
Table 4.7 Reliability of questionnaire of metacognitive strategies in oral communication performance
Planning Monitoring Evaluating
N of items Cronbach's Alpha N of items Cronbach's Alpha
N of
items
Cronbach's Alpha
9 0.707 7 0.754 4 0.723
As indicated in table 4.8, in the first aspect, known as organizing and planning through the preparation and presentation of the model CALLA from C1 to C9, a large percentage of the students showed their agreement on the benefits of organizing and planning by means of all items (>3.4). The most approved benefit was the facilitation of thinking of steps to complete the oral task with the means of 4.0455 (item C8). The second most agreed-upon benefit of organizing strategy was using metacognitive knowledge through WWWH questions to brainstorm prior ideas involving ideas and language features with a high mean (M = 3.9545). Besides that, the strong agreement was also emphasized in some answers (items C1 to C9).
78
Monitoring/ identifying problems
Table 4.8 Students’ opinions towards planning strategy in metacognitive strategies on English oral communication performance
Item Statistics
The 5-phase model
Metaco gnitive Strategi es
Statements N Mini
num Maxi
mum Mean Std.
Deviation
C1. I can make sure to clarify the goal to complete the whole oral
task. (type, time…) 22
3 5 3.6364 0.72673
C2. I can think a whole picture in my mind of what the oral task is.
22 3 5 3.9091 0.75018
C3. I can think about what I know (my prior ideas/
vocabulary/grammar…) to help me answer the oral task. 22 3 5 3.9545 0.57547 Preparation
C4. I can skim the oral task by finding key words to know how much I can answer the task.
22
3 5 3.5 0.67259
C5. I can use metacognitive knowledge (WWWH) to brainstorm prior ideas involving ideas and language feature (grammar/
vocabulary)
22
3 5 3.7727 0.52841
Organizing/ Planning
C6. I can note down any ideas, vocabulary, grammar… involving the oral tasks in a paper.
22 2 5 3.5909 0.79637
Presentatio n
C7. I can arrange ideas in order. 22 3 5 3.9545 0.57547
C8. I can think of steps to complete the oral task. 22 3 5 4.0455 0.57547
C9. I can preview whole the oral task. 22 2 5 3.9545 0.84387
Table 4.9: Students’ opinions towards monitoring and identifying problems strategies in metacognitive strategies on English oral communication performance
Item Statistics
Practice
C10. I can stop from time to time and think
all about my talk. 22 3 5
C11. I can check my understanding about
topic, supporting ideas or example. 22 2 5 C12. I can find out the problem causing
misunderstanding. 22 2 5
C13. I can correct my mistakes immediately
when found. 22 2 5
C14. I can check my speech. 22 1 5 2.9091 0.57547
Evaluation
C15. I can find out the problem making my
speech difficult to understand. 22 3 5 C16. I can note and correct the mistakes
immediately when found. 22 3 5
3.7273 0.55048 3.7727 0.61193 The
phase model
5- Metacogni tive Strategies
Statements N Mininum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
3.6818 0.83873 3.5455 0.85786 3.2727 0.85387 3.1364 0.73266
As indicated in Table 4.9, the second strategy of metacognitive strategies, monitoring, was used in the practice and evaluation phases of the model CALLA. The means in the phases were rather diverse, with the lowest mean M = 2.9091 (C14) and the highest mean M = 3.7727 (C16). From item C14, it indicated that students showed strong opposition against checking their own speech. The highest mean of using strategy monitoring was M = 3.7727, which was not as high as using other strategies. The opinions of the learners were rather diverse. It demonstrated that the majority of students were skeptical that a monitoring strategy would help them monitor their speech.
Table 4.10 Students’ opinions towards monitoring/ evaluating problems strategy in metacognitive strategies on English oral communication performance
Item Statistics
The 5- phase model
Metacognitive
Strategies Statements N Mini
mum Max imu m
Mean Std.
Deviation
C17. I can check how well I accomplish the oral task. 22 3 5 4.0455 0.72225 C18. I can assess how well you have used learning strategies 22 3 5 3.9545 0.84387 Expansion
Evaluating C19. Decide how effective the strategies were. 22 2 5 3.8182 0.73266 C20. I can identify changes I will make the next time I have
a similar task to do.
22 3 5 4.0909 0.61016
Regarding the evaluation strategy, in each item, there was strong agreement from the students, which showed positive results for the aspect of feeling about using the strategy. The means in items C17 to C20 had the highest compared to the others in table 4.8, with M = 4.0455, M = 3.9545, M = 3.8182, and M = 4.0909, respectively. All the means of the items were higher than the standard value.