FIELD DEPENDENT AND

INDEPENDENT STUDENTS ON
THEIR SPEAKING PERFORMANCE
at Ikasari Pharmacy Vocational High School of Pekanbaru
by :
Zella Nissa Safero
(11614201610)

Supervisor :
Dedy Wahyudi, M.Pd
1. CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of The Problem
Speaking Field Dependent Field Independent
as an interactive learners are those learners are those
process of constructing who are most who can concentrate
meaning that involves affected by their on something
producing, receiving, environment. without being
and processing speech
Siaman et al (2015) affected by situation.
of sounds as main
instruments. Winanti (2016)
Brown (2001)

3
 Phenomena :
1.
“
Some of students were not
interested in speaking class
2. Some of students still lack of
vocabularies
3. Some of students difficult to speak
english without any help from
teacher or friends
4. Some of students still have less
motivation to speak english
5. Some of students depend on the
other responses or environment
around them

4
The Problem
╸ Formulation of the Problem
a. How is Field Dependent students’ speaking performance at Ikasari
Pharmacy Vocational High School of Pekanbaru?
b. How is Field Independent students’ speaking performance at
Ikasari Pharmacy Vocational High School of Pekanbaru?
c. Is there any significant differences between Field Dependent and
Independent students’ speaking performance at Ikasari Pharmacy
Vocational High School of Pekanbaru?

5
2. CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
 Relevant Researches
No Author / Title Design Findings

1. Tinajero & Paramo (1998) / FD-FI in SLA Analysis FI students better than FD students in SLA

2. Marashi & Moghadam (2014) / The Differences between Comparative There is a correlation between them
FD-FI and Use of Oral Communication Strategies

3. Onyekuru (2015) / FI-FD Cognitive style, gender, career Descriptive FI better in science, FD better in art
choice and academic achievement

4. Kaniadewi (2017) / The Effect of Cognitive style toward Experiment FD better than FI in speaking skill
Speaking skill

5. Barakatullaili (2018) / The Comparison between FD & FI Causal FI better than FD in reading comprehension
in Reading Comprehension Comparative

7
Operational Concept

Variable X : Variable Y :

Field Dependent and Students’ Speaking

Independent Student Performance

8
 Variable X indicators :
1. Field Dependent indicators:
- Prefer general & abstract things
- Prefer communication activities
- Show high interest in others’ feedback
- Are easily affected by their environment
2. Field Independent indicators:
- Prefer detailed and concrete things
- Prefer classroom studies such grammatical
analysis
- Show less interest in others’ feedback
- Are not easily affected by their environment
9
 Variable Y indicators:
Speaking performance indicators:
- The students are able to produce fluent
speech
- The students are able to use correct
grammar
- The students are able to use appropriate
vocabularies
- The students are able to produce clear
pronunciation
- The students are able to express their ideas
comprehensively
10
Assumption & Hypothesis
2

Ha :

There is a significant differences between

Field Dependent and Independent students
in their speaking performance

Ho :

There is no significant differences between

Field Dependent and Independent students
in their speaking performance

11
3. CHAPTER THREE
METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
Research Design
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Causal Comparative (ex-post facto)

“attempt to determine cause or
differences that already exis between
group or individuals.”
Fraenkel et al (2012)

13
Time & Location of the Research

Time of the research: Location of the research:

The research was The research was took place at
Ikasari Pharmacy Vocational High
conducted on May-June
School of Pekanbaru
2020

14
Subject & Object of the researchs

Subject of the research: Object of the research:

The 10th grade students of The students’ cognitive style
Ikasari Pharmacy Vocational of learning English includes
field dependent and
High School of Pekanbaru
independent on their speaking
performance

15
Population of the Research
No. Class Number of Students
1. XI Pharmacy 1 36 students
2. XI Pharmacy 2 35 students
3. XI Pharmacy 3 35 students
4. XI Pharmacy 4 35 students
5. XI Pharmacy 5 33 students
6. XI Pharmacy 6 36 students
7. XI TLM 1 33 students
8. XI KI 1 27 students
Total Population 270 students

16
Samples of the Research
No. Class Number of students
1. XI Pharmacy 1 9
2. XI Pharmacy 2 9

3. XI Pharmacy 3 9
4. XI Pharmacy 4 9
5. XI Pharmacy 5 9
6. XI Pharmacy 6 9
7. XI TLM 1 7
8. XI KI 1 7
Total samples 68

17
Technique of collecting data

1. Questionnaire
based on Robert Wyss’ (2012) checklist

2. Speaking Performance test

Based on the students’ topic of learning

18
Questionnaire
No. Field Independent A B C D E Field Dependent
1. I have no problem concentrating I need a quiet environment in order to
amid noise and confusion concentrate well
2. I enjoy analyzing grammar structures I find grammar analysis tedious and boring
3. I feel I must understand every word I don’t mind reading or listening L2 without
of that I read or hear understanding every single word as long
as I ‘catch’ the main idea
4. I think classroom study is the key to I think communication is the key to
effective language learning effective language learning
5. I prefer working alone to working with I really enjoy working with other people in
other people pairs or groups
6. Receiving feedback from other I find feedback useful as a means of
people really doesn’t affect my understanding my problem areas
learning at all

19
Technique of Analyzing the Data

P= f x 100%
N

Where:
P = Number of
Percentage
F = frequency
N = Number of Samples
20
Findings
1. The mean score of FD 2. The mean score of FI 3. There is a significant
students was 66.29 students was 59.69 differences between FD
categorized into Good categorized into and FI students on their
level Average level speaking performance

21
Thanks!

22