This document is a research paper submitted for a master's program that examines out-of-class English language learning activities (OCLLA) among 59 Indonesian high school students. It aims to identify the most common OCLLA, determine if a correlation exists between OCLLA and students' English achievement, and analyze differences in OCLLA among students with high, average, and low scores. The paper provides background on OCLLA and reviews related literature before outlining the study's methodology, results on prevalent activities, correlation found, and differences across achievement levels.

1. OUT-OF-CLASS LANGUAGE LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND
STUDENTS’ L2 ACHIVEMENT: A CASE STUDY OF INDONESIAN
STUDENTS IN A SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL, BANDUNG, INDONESIA.
A RESEARCH PROJECT PAPER SUBMITTED FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF
COMPLETING A MASTER PROGRAM VIA COURSE-WORK ONLY
NAME: IHSAN IBADDURRAHMAN
MATRIC NO: G1025429
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 25/06/2012
SUPERVISOR: DR. ROZINA ABDUL GHANI
1

2. TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….. 1
1.1. Background ……………………………………………………………... 2
1.2. Statement of Problem …………………………………………………..…. 4
1.3. Purpose of Study ……………………………………………………….…. 4
1.4. Research Objective …………………………………………………….…. 5
1.5. Research Questions …………………………………………………….…. 5
1.6. The Scope of Research ………………………………………………….…6
1.7. Significance of Study ……………………………………………………... 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………....... 8
2.1. Theoretical Framework ………………………………………………….... 8
2.2. Studies on Out-of-class Language Learning Activities …………………... 10
2.3. Out-of-class Language Learning Activities in Indonesia…………………. 11
2.4. Studies on Factors that Influence OCLLA ………………………………...12
2.5. Studies on Correlation between OCLLA and L2 Achievement…………... 12
2.6. Studies on OCLLA across Three Different Levels of Achievement……… 13
2.7. Intervening Variables……………………………………………………… 15
3. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………. 16
3.1. Population ………………………………………………………………… 17
3.2. Research Design …………………………………………………………...17
3.3. Instruments ………………………………………………………………... 18
3.4. Reliability and Validity …………………………………………………… 20
3.5. Data Collection Procedures ………………………………………………..21
3.6. Conceptual and Operational Definitions …………………………………. 22
3.7. Data Analysis …………………………………………………………...… 23
3.8. Ethics ……………………………………………………………………....25
4. RESULT AN DISCUSSIONS…………………………………………………… 26
4.1. The Most Frequent OCLLA Employed by the Participants …………..….. 26
4.1.1. Listening ………………………………………………………… 28
4.1.2. Reading ………………………………………………………...... 31
4.1.3. Speaking ………………………………………...................……. 33
4.1.4. Writing …………………………………………………………... 34
4.2. The Correlation between OCLLA and L2 Achievement ……………….… 35
2

3. 4.3.OCLLA across three different levels of L2 Achievement ……...…………. 36
4.3.1. Grade C ………………………………………………………….. 37
4.3.2. Grade B ……………………………………………………..…… 39
4.3.3. Grade A ……………………………………………………….…. 40
5. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ……………………………….... 43
6. CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………. 43
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….. 45
APPENDIX A: Letter of Authenticity ……………………………………………….... 48
APPENDIX B: Questionnaire ………………………………………………………….49
APPENDIX C: Semi-structured interview questions ………………………………… 50
APPENDIX D: Excerpt from English National Examination 2010/2011 …………….. 51
APPENDIX E: OCLLA employed by students with a low score in the exam ……....... 54
APPENDIX F: OCLLA employed by students with an average score in the exam …... 55
APPENDIX G: OCLLA employed by students with a high in the exam …………...… 56
APPENDIX H: EXCERPT FROM AN INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION ………….. 57
APPENDIX I: EXAMPLE OF DAILY ACTIVITY JOURNAL …………………...… 60
3

4. OUT-OF-CLASS LANGUAGE LEARNING ACTIVITIES
AND STUDENTS’ L2 ACHIEVEMENT: A CASE STUDY OF INDONESIAN
STUDENTS IN A SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL, BANDUNG, INDONESIA.
ABSTRACT
This study describesprevalent out-of-class language learning activities employed by 59
senior high school students in Bandung. It specificallyexamines whether there is a link
between these activities to their L2 achievement in class.Using both the quantitative and
qualitative approach, the study finds that the most popular activities are receptive skills
of listening and reading, indicating that these Indonesian students are largely passive
learners of English. Analysis of the questionnaire data reveals that there is a correlation
between these activities and how they perform in the class. The study also investigates
language learning activities beyond the classroom that are employed by three different
groups of leaners: those with poor, mediocre, and high scores.
1.Introduction
In response tothe increasing global needs of people to use English, most schools in Asia include
English as a compulsory subject in schools. In Indonesia, Englishis a compulsory subjectthat
students must take ever since they enter their elementary school. However, for these EFL
students, learning English could be a challenge since what they learn in the classroom could not
be applied and used for practice outside the class. The focus of English teaching in the class is
largely on language structures. Very little attention is given to communicative competence which
would be needed when learners engage in conversations outside the class.
4

5. A widely held view on language acquisition is that learning is most effective when there
is a combination of form-focused instruction and optimal exposure to the language (Brown,
2007). The former entails the nuts and bolts of language in the form of teacher‟s instruction,
while the latter involves rich comprehensible input either from the teacher in the class or other
sources available beyond the class (Benson and Reinders, 2011). Since teachers in EFL
contextsusually use English very minimally and often with poor command of English in the
class,out-of-class sources such as books, songs, and internet could be a rich and invaluable input
for learners to pick up the language from (Lamb, 2002). However, as invaluable as it might be,
studies on language learning beyond the classroom are scarce. Much more is known on how
language is learned in the classroom than how it is learned outside (Pearson, 2003).
1.1. Background
In the field of Second Language Learning, Learner autonomy is described as a condition of a
learner having the ability to control their own learning, often outside the direction of
conventional language learning in the classroom (Benson, 2011). One of the characteristics of
autonomous learners is the willingness to seek the opportunities of and partake in language
learning activities outside the classroom, which can include (but are not exclusive to) watching
movies, listening to the radio, reading extra materials, or practicing with friends and fellow
students (Chausanachoti, 2009).
Various studies have defined Out-of-class Language Learning Activities (OCLLA) as any
non-assignment,self-directed, language learning activities that are performed outside the class, be
it for the sake of learning the language itself or for pure pleasure (Chausanachoti, 2009; Pearson,
5

6. 2004; Benson, 2011).However, studies indicate that there has been inconsistency in wording the
term; different authors use slightly different word.For example,Benson (2011) uses out-of-class
learning,Hydra (2004) and Chausanachoti (2009) use „out-of-class language activity‟, Al-Otaibi
(2004) prefers to use „out-of-class language practice‟, and Anderson (2004) chooses „out-of-
class language use‟. Pickard (1996), in particular, uses „out-of-class Language Learning
Strategy” for the same definition. A closer look at the meaning of “Learning Strategy” reveals
that it is a method employed in performing specific learning tasks such as the use of synthesis of
learning materials in problem solving activities (cognitive), and self-regulation in language
learning (meta-cognitive), all of which capture the essence of conscious behaviors (Ellis, 1997;
Brown, 2007). MacIntyre(as cited in Al-Otaibi, 2004) succinctly explains that learning strategy
is a conscious behavior that learners use as a plan or tactic towards success in language learning.
As such, this study was not an attempt to investigateconscious learning strategies employed
outside the class, rather it aims to describe and quantify out-of-class language learning activities
(e.g. reading novels, watching movies, and so on) whether done with or without a conscious
effort to learn English.
These out-of-class language learning activities have been considered as a significant
contributor to second language proficiency (Lamb, 2002; Pearson, 2004) and achievement
(Lamb, 2002). However, there is a dearth of research in this area, particularly in EFL contexts
(Benson, 2011; Benson and Reinders, 2011). In order to enrich the field, this study takes both
qualitative and quantitative approach by examining a cohort of Indonesian high school students.
6

7. 1.2. Statement of Problem
Studies on OCLLA have largelybeen focusing on the identification and quantification of these
out-of-class activities such as those done by Pickard (1996), Pearson (2004), Hyland (2004), Al-
Otaibi(2004) and Chausanachoti (2009). There have not been many studies done to accurately
describe howOCLLA impacts on language learning, particularly in the EFL contexts in
Indonesia. Lamb (2002) conducted a small-scale pilot study of learning behavior and L2
achievement of 16 Indonesian university students in a provincial area in Indonesia. Such a small-
scale study needs further investigation. Therefore, this study attempts to extend and enrich
Lamb‟s study by employing a mixed method of research design.
1.3. Purpose of Study
The overall purpose of this study is to investigate out-of-class language learning activities carried
out by Indonesian high school learners in one particular high school in Bandung, Indonesia. The
overriding aim of this study is to identify, classify, and quantify these activities and how they are
linked to learners‟ English achievement in the class. This study also attempts to examine how
different groups of learners (grade A, grade B, and grade C) learn English outside the class.
7

8. 1.4. Research Objective
The study focuses on out-of-class EFL learning condition in Indonesia and its link to learners‟
L2 achievement in the class. Specifically, it aims to achieve the following goals:
a. to identify out-of-class language learning activities of second-yearIndonesian high school
learners in a particular school,
b. to find a correlation between out-of-class language learning activities and their English
achievement,
c. todiscover language learning activities among three different levels of English
achievement (high, mid, and low).
1.5. Research Questions
Generally, this study addresses one question: How do Indonesian high school learners engage in
out-of-class language learningactivities (OCLLA)? Specifically, itattempts to seek answers to the
following questions:
1. What are the most frequently used out-of-class language learning activities employed by
senior high Indonesian students outside the class?
2. What is the correlation between students‟ English achievement and the language
activities they do outside the class?
3. What are some of the language learning activities employed by students who have high,
mediocre, and poor English scores?
8

9. 1.6. The Scope of Research
This study investigates out-of-class language learning activities employed by 59second year
senior high school students, aged 17-18 years old, in one particular school in Bandung,
Indonesia. Thus, cautions should be taken when attempting to make generalizations of the
findings toother senior high school students in a different school, in a larger population.
The data covers findings from January to February 2012, during which the researcher was
able to obtain students‟ latest English score obtained from the standardized national examination.
To fit the purpose of this study, only this particular English score was used to correlate with the
frequency of their out-of-class language learning activities. The test measures students‟
achievement (what they have learned in the class) as opposed to their English proficiency
(general ability of English). The study limits itself to this particular English achievement because
it has been used as a standard measurement in the country to decide whether students pass or fail
during their study in high school.
It should also be noted that the correlation between their L2 achievement and out-of-class
activities is not used to gauge or identify a nomothetic causal relationship between the two. With
this purpose in mind, this study does not seek to look at other variables that might influence
students‟ English achievement such as learners‟ motivation, learning style, aptitude, gender, and
teacher‟s competence.
9

10. 1.7. Significance of Study
This study was conducted in Indonesian EFL environment in the hope that it would give teachers
in that particular environment a valuable insight of how their learners engage in language
learning activities outside the class and, more importantly, how these activities contribute to
learners‟ overall English achievement. By suggesting how learners from three different
achievement levels (high, mid, low) approach their language learning, teachers may provide a
model for their learners of how successful language learners, (i.e., those in the higher
achievement level) learn English.
Although this is a descriptive study of out-of-class language learning activities in
Bandung, Indonesia, its implication could be extended beyond this specific context.This study
would hopefully be of benefits to Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers as it provides
some insight into how L2 achievement contributes to learners‟ engagement to out-of-class
English language learning activities. In particular, this study is hoped to enrichthe literature of
learner autonomy as OCLLA itself falls within this specific field (Chausanachoti, 2009). In this
fashion, learner autonomy fitswithin Indonesia‟s current approach in senior high education called
SKBK (SistemKurikulumBerbasisKompetensi or Competency-based Instruction) which
primarily aims to develop learner‟s competence by having learners take an active role in
learning. Curriculum designers could then make use of the findings in this study to integrate,
incorporate, and modify the current curriculum to include out-of-class language learning as an
integral component in SKBK.
10

11. 2.Literature Review
This section reviews what researchers have done on the area of out-of-class language learning
activities. The section starts with the theoretical framework that is used to govern this study, it
then looks at the previous studies done on OCLLA and closes with intervening variables that
might affect the findings in this study. The content organization of the literature logically follows
a chronological order of the research questions used in this study.
2.1. Theoretical framework
In order to identify the type of activities that learners engage in outside the class, this study uses
a theoretical framework from Benson (2011: 76) which classifies the activities into three broad
categories:
a. Self-instruction: Activities stemmed from learner‟s conscious effort to seek out resources
of language learning activities by himself, without intervention from teachers or English
native speakers. Suchactivities includestudying grammar books or doing vocabulary
exercises in textbooks. This deliberate effort to master a particular language skill may
also involve studying English in the classroom. However, the study focuses more on
those activities employed outside the class. Activities that fall into self-instruction may
also be viewed as occupying various positions in a continuum. On one extreme end, there
is an episodic, short-term learning.On the other extreme end of the continuum, there is an
autonomous learning, which is a stronger sense of self-instructionthat involves long-term
self-initiated learning. In order to measure self-instruction as used by the participants, a
learning journal was used to observe how often the participants do these activates.
11

12. b. Naturalistic learning: These are involuntary activities where learners engage in social
activities by interacting with others in English such as conversing with a native speaker
on the street. Naturalistic learning is normally used to refer to a language learning
activity where leaners have a direct communication with users of the target language,
such as those in ESL situations where learners live and communicate with the people who
speak the language. Naturalistic learning in this study limits its scope to activities that
involve direct communication with either native or non-native speakers as the
opportunity to do these activities arises. Both a questionnaire and learning journal were
used to investigate the extent of learners‟ engagement to naturalistic learning.
c. Self-directed naturalistic learning: Self-imposed activities which learners do with the
intention of learning English but with more focus ondoing it for pleasure rather than for
the sake of language learning. Such activities include reading novels, playing video
games, watching movies, listening to songs, etc. This last type of out-of-class language
learning forms the focal focus of this study. The questionnaire was exclusively used to
gather information for this particular type of out-of-class language learning.
Learner autonomy is an essential concept that cannot be separated from out-of-class
language learning. In EFL contexts such as Indonesia, it is “a necessary pre-condition for
success in language learning” (Lamb, 2002: 49).It is thus useful to describe which theory of
learner autonomy is used for this particular study. The framework used in this study is that of
Benson‟s (2011) definition of Autonomy. The term is described as learner‟s ability to take
charge of their own learning which involves the engagement to out-of-class language learning
activities. It is not to be confused with the theory of autonomy in second language acquisition
where it is defined as learner‟s ability to use automatized bits of language in their attempt to
12

13. communicate personal messages in unrehearsed situation (Littlewood, 1996, as cited in Benson,
2011). In this sense, the study uses the framework of autonomy as being synonymous to learner‟s
independence to the teacher‟s intervention.
2.2. Studies on Out-of-class Language Learning Activities
Out-of-class language learning activity is a scope of research that has received much attention
and interest over the years. There has been a great consistency of receptive skills (listening and
writing) being the most widely used out-of-class language learning activities (Pickard, 1996;
Pearson, 2004; Hyland, 2004; Al-Otaibi, 2004; Chausanachoti, 2009; Marefat and Barbari,
2009). Specifically, Pickard (1996) identifies out-of-class language learning employed by 20
advanced German learners of English. Survey from the distributed questionnaires reveals that
receptive skills such as listening to the radioand reading newspapers are among the most popular
activities. Productive skills, such as speaking or writing, are not considered since the
opportunities to use them outside the class are severely limited. However, given the small
number of sampling, such conclusion should be made cautiously.
In EFL contexts, a similar array of activities has also been reported. In Hong Kong,
Hyland (2004) notes that passive skills such as reading books, and surfing the net are among the
most frequently used out-of-class language learning activities employed by 228 university
English-education students. She argues that a hindrance in speaking English outside the class
stems from students‟ fear of negative judgments primarily caused by social or political factors
there. 106 Chinese students studying English in New Zealand have also been reported of
employing passive skills as the top five most frequently used OCLLAs (Pearson, 2004). These
activities are listening to news on the radio, independent study in the library, reading books,
13

14. watching television programs and listening to the music. According to a study conducted in
Thailand, browsing the net, reading posters, and watching movies are the top three OCLLAs
(Chausanachoti, 2009).A study conducted in Saudi Arabia reveals that passive out-of-class
activities such as watching movies, listening to songs, and reading for pleasure are the most
widely used by 237 English language learners. The frequency differs somewhat between females
(n = 97) and males participants (n = 140), with female showing a higher frequency than the male
counterparts (Al-Ottaibi, 2004). A small-scale study on OCLLA conducted in a closely related,
but also quite different, setting in the Middle East reveals that passive skills such as Reading
English booksand listening English news are the most popular out-of-class language learning
activities by 60 Iranian EFL university students (Marefat and Barbari, 2009).
2.3. Out-of-class Language LearningActivities in Indonesia
There havenotbeenmany studies done on OCLLA in Indonesian contexts. However, there is one
invaluable study conducted by Martin Lamb (2002) who investigated Indonesia‟s poor learning
conditions in a provincial area. Building on his previous quantitative research on learning
strategies, this exploratory research aims to look deeper into what enables students to learn
English under difficult circumstances. 16 undergraduate students from different faculties
participated in the interview. From the analysis, it is revealed that opportunities to use English in
a meaningful communication outside the class are exceedingly rare. This might be due to the
negative images constructed by society to those who speak English in public – the same problem
faced by students in Hong Kong (Hyland, 2004). Other possible means for these students to gain
access to English are through media such as film, newspaper, magazines. Yet, he states that with
their poor level of English, they could not make sense of these authentic texts, denying the
14

15. comprehensible input needed for their L2 acquisition. The findings need to be considered
cautiously, however, since it pictures only a small scale of population in a remote area of
Indonesia and cannot truly generalize OCLLA used in Indonesia as a whole.
2.4. Studies on Factors that Influence OCLLA
Studies have indicated that learners choose activities that are intrinsically interesting to them,
activities suggested by the teacher which have little relevance or interest to them are not highly
considered (Pickard, 1996; Lai and Gu, 2011). Conversely, Al-Ottaibi (2004) argues that the
teacher may bear certain influence on students‟ use of OCLLA, especially in Saudi‟s learning
environment where the teacher plays a dominant role in deciding what students do with their
learning. As previously mentioned, students might be limited to choose their OCLLA due to the
lack of opportunities to use them. Pearson (2004) considers students‟ type of accommodation as
a contributing factor towards these opportunities. He comments that students who live in
University hostels and houses have little opportunity to interact with others in English, they tend
to mix with their friends and chat in L1. On the other hand, accommodation in home-stays
provides students that rare opportunity to interact in English with their English-native-speaking
hosts. Other influencing factors include, but not exclusive to, students‟ preferred learning style
and social context (Lamb, 2002; Pearson, 2004; Hyland, 2004).
The extent of how much these OCLLA is used is largely determined by learners‟
autonomy and motivation (Mori, 2002; Lamb, 2002; Saville and Trioke, 2009). Pearson (2004),
in particular, notes that intrinsically motivated students (the desire to learn the language coming
from one-self, as opposed to external rewards) seem to exert more effort in using the language
outside. However, he asserts that we cannot make such easy generalization because the nature of
out-of-class language learning is idiosyncratic in a sense that learners spend their time and effort
15

16. outside the class differently. He suggests that teachers should foster learner autonomy in the
classroom to develop learners‟ awareness of such out-of-class language learning activities. In the
same vein, Brown (2007) and Gao (2009) confirm the need for teachers to develop learners‟
autonomy by helping learners to look for language practice opportunities beyond the classroom.
In other words, learning English in the classroom is only the beginning of the journey towards
the reality that learners will face outside. In fact, in EFL contexts where the opportunity to use
English outside is limited, learner autonomy is “a necessary pre-condition for success in
language learning” (Lamb, 2002: 49).
2.5. Studies on Correlation between OCLLA and L2 Achievement.
It is generally accepted that exposure to the language is essential to language acquisition
(Harmer, 2007). The rich exposure that OCLLA brings to learners might as well contribute to
their L2 achievement. Studies have shown a positive correlation between the two. For example,
reading for pleasure is reported to have a high correlation with overall language proficiency
(Green and Oxford as cited in Brown, 2001). Language gains from extensive reading have also
been reported in detail by Renandya (2007) who observes that students exposed to free reading
have more significant growth not only in their reading comprehension but also in word
recognition and oral sentence repetition compared to those who are not. Similarly, extensive
listening is also reported to be highly beneficial to students‟ L2 improvement (Ucán, 2010).
Chausanachoti (2009) provides a comprehensive account of the perceived benefits of OCLLA
towards students‟ L2 proficiency. She notes that listening to songs help improve students‟
accuracy of pronunciation. Pearson (2004) considers the use of language computer software in
16

17. self-access centers as a significant contributortowards language proficiency gains, especially for
those in lower proficiency levels.
The same positive correlation with OCLLA also extends to language achievement (the
measurement of students‟ performance in the class). Benson and Reinders (2011) note that high
more able students often mention out-of-class language learning as the cause of their high L2
achievement in the class. Lamb (2002) also finds that there is a link between what students learn
outside the class and how they perform in the class. However he contends that such opportunity
to learn English outside the class is unfortunate for Indonesian EFL students, creating what he
calls a paradox – those who need English most are sadly those with a poor level of English.
In discussingthe correlation between OCLLA and L2 achievement, there is always the
notorious chicken-and-egg theoryas identified by Gass and Selinker (1994), and Ellis (1997).
This problem of directionality poses a question: which causes which. Is it OCLLA that in the
first place causes the growth of students‟ L2 achievement in class? Or are learners required
topossess a good command of English in order for them to be able to use OCLLA?
2.6. Studies on OCLLAacrossThree Different Levels of Achievements.
In the discussion of OCLLA across three different achievement levels (high, mid, and low-
achieving students), it is suggested that the high-achieving group tend to employ out-of-class
language learning more than those in mid or low achieving group (Lamb, 2002; Marefat and
Barbari, 2009). Specifically, Marefat and Barbari conclude that although all three groups employ
receptive skills, high achieving group tend todo more readingactivities while those in mid and
low achieving group engage more in listening activities. In Lamb‟s study, it is notedthat
activities that do not require students to understand English such as listening to songs, using
17

18. bilingual dictionaries, are chosen mostly by low-achieving group. On the other hand, the use of
authentic materials such as magazines, novels, and newspaper seem to be favored more by high-
achieving group. This seems to indicate that because of their English, high-achieving students
might just have the ability to comprehend authentic materials that would otherwise be too
difficult for mid or low-achieving group. In other words, as students‟ level of L2 achievement
increase so do their complexity of OCLLA.
2.7. Intervening Variables
Out-of-class language learning activity is just one, among many variables, that could contribute
to learners‟ L2 achievement. The intervening variables that might come at play include learner‟s
differences, and teacher‟s L2 competence.
Learner‟s differences, more commonly known as Individual differences in SLA, are
psychological factors in learners that could contribute to their L2 acquisition. Ellis (1997)
mentions three types of individual differences:
a. Language aptitude: the ability to learn L2 naturally, as an in-born gift.
b. Motivation: The attitudes and affective states that determine the degree of effort a learner
exert to learn L2.
c. Learning strategies: specific approaches or techniques the learners employ as a conscious
effort to learn L2.
Another intervening variable is teacher‟s competency both in teaching English and using
the language itself. Umar-ud-Din et al. (2010) investigate the relationship between teacher‟s
qualification and students‟ L2 performance. It is revealed that English Language Teachers
18

19. (ELTs), having Master‟s degree in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages),wield a more positive influence on students‟ L2 performance than Teachers with
Formal Education (TFEs). Because of their sound knowledge in teaching methodology, ELTs are
able to adapt to the classroom learning condition and use it as an advantage to promote learning.
Such creativity is not found in TFEs where they mainly rely on text books for learning. This
results in ELTs‟ students having better final examination scores than the TFEs counterpart.
Lamb (2002) also reports that teacher‟s incompetence in both the language and teaching
methodology might be the cause of students‟ stunted L2 development. Unaware of a sound
teaching methodology, these teachers are reported to ask their students to do repetitive de-
contextualized grammar exercises or language drills that may have little effect on their language
gains. Furthermore, since the teacher lacks English skills, the instructions are mainly delivered in
L1. Hence, students do not get a healthy dose of comprehensible input needed for their L2
acquisition.
3. Methodology
This section describes at length the methodology used for this particular study. It elaborates the
population, research design, instruments, reliability and validity, data collection procedure,
conceptual and operational definitions, ethics, and data analysis for this study.
19

20. 3.1. Population
The Subjects of this study are 59second year senior high students, on average they are 17 to 18
years old, with 29 males and 30 females. Due to the constraints of random sampling,
convenientsampling was selected for this study. All students are from class XI-Science-4, XI-
Science-5, and XI-Science-7 from the same school. These students have taken English as part of
their compulsory subjects since junior high for five years. However, learning English in the class
is limited to only writing grammatically correct sentences and doing reading comprehension
exercises. Students are rarely given a chance to speak English communicatively. This resulted in
students having somehow poor command of English.
3.2Research Design
This study utilized a mixed approach to research design. Specifically, it employed a sequential
mixed method as the data began with a quantitative method followed bya qualitative method
(Creswell, 2009). A quantitative study was used to obtain the frequency of activities across the
sample. It was also used to examine the correlation between their learning behavior andstudents‟
English performance. Pickard (1996) asserts that this quantitative approach enables the
researcher to readily express and calculatethe frequency of students‟ out-of-class activities in
figures. This allows the researcher to gain an overview of OCLLA.Furthermore, such approach is
effective in discerning language learning characteristics that are shared by three different levels
of students, that is grade A, B, and C students.
Qualitative approach, on the other hand,wasused to describe these activities in detail
through interviews and journals. This approach allows theresearcher to glean an in-depthstudyof
20

21. numerical representations from the quantitative data; it specifically aims to investigate the
firstresearch question of this study even further, which is to describe out-of-class language
learning activities. In this sense, using both qualitative and quantitative methods adds strength to
the findings and addresses the limitations of each other.
3.3. Instruments
The instruments employed in this study includea questionnaire, a face-to-face semi-structured
interview, and documents (students‟ learning journals, and English scores).The questionnaire
was adapted and adopted from the study done by Pickard (1996) which included 16 questions
related to the out-of-class activities that students generally engage in; these 16 questions were
divided in quarters, where each separate skills (i.e. listening, reading, speaking, and writing) was
given equal attention (i.e. four questions). For the sake of data processing, the questionnaire used
a Likert scale ranging from 'never' (value of 0) to „everyday‟ (a 4). The questions followed a
matrix question format since it allowed closed-ended questionnaires that have the same category
response to be presented efficiently (Babbie, 2010).
The Interview was conducted face-to-face with open-ended questions. These questions
were based on the findings obtained from the questionnaire. Semi-structured interview wasthus
chosen as the researcher has a general idea in mind where the direction of the interview would
go.However, at the same time it allows a great deal of flexibility, allowing new ideas and
questions to be brought up during the course of the interview (Nunan, 1992).The topical structure
of the interview follows Benson‟s (2011) theoretical framework.The interview wasaudiotaped,
21

22. transcribed verbatim, translated if students prefer to use L1, and analyzed and interpreted using
key word analysis by Nunan (1992).
Both the questionnaire and the interview have gone through several refinements from a
pilot study conducted to 33 senior high school students from the same school in the previous
year. Some of the changes in the questionnaire include OCLLA „playing video games‟ replacing
the older item „going to the cinema‟.In the present study, the interview was conducted in L1
instead of L2 as it allowed the participants to express their thoughts more freely; without a
barrier in communication.
To strengthen the findings, the data from interview and questionnairewere then
triangulated with students‟ learning journals.The use of journals grants the researcher the ability
to collect additional information about learner‟s activities which could be missing in the
questionnaire (Hyland, 2004). The format of the journal was adapted and adopted from a study
by Chausanachoti (2009)– Please refer to Appendix I, p. 60. In order to correlate OCLLA and
English achievement, students‟ English score was used. This score was gathered from their
current English test at school, which measures students‟ English achievement level by a
standardized Indonesian national English examination (see Appendix D, p. 57-59).
It is generally understood that L2 achievement tests aim to measure how far students have
mastered the materials learned in the class. As such, the tests themselves must be related to the
goals and objectives specified by the teacher in the class. This is to be contrasted with
proficiency tests like TOEFL or IELTS which measure learner‟s general language ability. Since
the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between OCLLA and L2 achievement,
the English national exam was used as a research instrument for this study. The national exam
22

23. consists of 50 multiple choice questions, with 15 questions on listening, and 35 on reading.
These questions are based on the materials covered in the class, and is specified by the current
curriculum system in Indonesia, and therefore it qualifies as an achievement test. The fact that
reading is the dominant skill tested in the exam reflects government‟s current concern on
reading, who believes that by putting more emphasis on reading in its education system, high
school students would be better able to cope with their academic reading skill (Nurweni and
Read, 1999). Another reason why national exam was chosen is because the test is a standardized
national test, and thus validity and reliability could be ensured. At least, face validity could be
attested on the grounds that it has been used in Indonesia since 1985 as a criterion for graduation
and a benchmark to map the quality of its education across regions (Aziez, 2011).
3.4. Reliability and Validity
Reliability is defined as the degree of consistency of data measurement that would yield the same
results if the data are taken on different occasions. Validity, on the other hand, is the degree of
accuracy of what the research is trying to measure (Babbie, 2010). Since this study used a mixed
method, the researcher had the means to employ different instruments from both quantitative and
qualitative methods. In turn, this would allow data from interviews, questionnaires, and learning
journals to be triangulated. This triangulation process has been known to ensure reliability as
well as validity (Creswell, 2009). This study also involved an English test measuring students‟
achievement in English, since it comes from a standardizedtest made by the government,
reliability and validity could be ensured.
23

24. 3.5. Data Collection Procedures
This study involved a simple four-step data collection procedure which is illustrated in the table
below:
Step Task Duration
First phase Collecting questionnaires One day
Second phase Collecting students‟ English scores A week
Third phase Collecting journals Two weeks
Forth phase Conducting a face-to-face interview Three days
During the first phase of data collection, questionnairesand students‟ current English
scores were collected. For the questionnaire, the researcher came to the class, introduced what
the research was about, and gave an instructionas to how to complete the questionnaire, all of
which approximately took 15 minutes to complete. The initial aim was to distribute the
questionnaires to three classes which would comprise of 75 students, with 25 students from each
class. However, during the time of questionnaire distribution 7 students from these three classes
were absent, reducing the total number of the respondents down to 68 students. The second
phase involved administering an English national standardized test to these three classes over a
week. Again, there weresome students who did not partake in the exam; there were 9 missing
scores from the 68 respondents who completed the questionnaires. The total number of
participants of this study is thus 59.The English score was obtained immediately after the
distribution of the questionnaires so that both results could be compared, correlated and analyzed
as soon as possible. In the third phase, a week after the test, 15 studentswere introduced to a
journal and instructed to write their out-of-class language learning activities in two weeks.These
24

25. 15 students were randomly taken from three different levels of achievement based on the
resulting score of the national exam in the second phase of data collection. Thus, the selected 15
students each comprised of 5 students representing high, mid, and low scorers.In the final phase
of data collection, the same 15 students were interviewedface to face, and were asked based on
the entries of the journals they had written during the two week period. Each interview lasted
approximately 10 minutes.In total, the whole data collection took about a month.
3.6. Conceptual and Operational Definitions
The conceptual definition of OCLLA is any self-initiated, non-assignment, out-of-class language
learning activities done in learner‟s free time, with or without the intention to learn the language
itself (Chausanachoti, 2009; Pearson, 2004; Benson, 2011). In order to operationalize this
concept, this study usedtwo kinds of measurement: frequency and classification. To gauge the
frequency, a 5-point Likert scale is employed (never, once a month, once a week, several times a
week, everyday) in the questionnaire – please refer to appendix B, p.49. As for the classification,
this study adapts Benson‟s (2011) theoretical framework which groups OCLLA into three broad
types: self-instruction, naturalistic learning, and self-directed naturalistic learning. The next
section discusses at length how these operational definitions are conducted in a step-by-step
procedure.
25

26. 3.7. Data Analysis
Results from the questionnaires werefirst converted into numbers and presented into tables in
Microsoft Excel. The mean scoresfor each activity were calculated in order to gain a preliminary
data offrequencyof students‟ out-of-class language learning activities. The results were
thencorrelated to students‟ current English achievement score using Excel’s Pearson Correlation
Coefficient function. From the resulting score, students were divided into three different grades:
those who obtained a score of more than 80 were graded A, those who received 60-79 were
classified as grade B, and those who scored below 60 were classified as grade C. From these
three groups,theout-of-class language learning activities are identified and analyzed.
In order to ensure reliability, questionnaire findings were compared and cross-checked to
that of learning journals using a framework of analysis done by Chausanachoti (2009). Findings
from the learning journal were also analyzed using Benson‟s theoretical framework of OCLLA
where the activities recorded in the journal wereidentified and grouped into three broad
categories: self-instruction, naturalistic learning, and self-directed naturalistic learning.
Finally, recordings from the interview were transcribed, translated, and analyzed using
keyword analysis from Nunan (1995) – Please refer to appendix H, p. 57-59 for the sample
script. Using this analysis, the researcher is able to identify and classify different themes fromthe
recurring key words in the transcripts. The findings from the interview were then triangulated
with the findings from questionnaire and learning journal.
26

27. The matrix below illustrates the methodology used for this particular study.
Research Questions Data Collection Data Analysis
Excel‟s mean
Questionnaire
function
1. What are the most frequently used out-of-class language A framework of
learning activities employed by senior high Indonesian analysis by
Journal
Chausanacoti
students outside the class? (2009)
A theoretical
Interview
framework by
Benson (2011)
Excel‟s
2. What is the correlation between students‟ English Questionnaire
Pearson
achievement and the language activities they do outside coefficient
English National
the class? correlation
Exam
function
Questionnaire
3. What are some of the language learning activities
employed by students who have high, mediocre, and poor Interview Excel‟s mean
function
English scores? English National
Exam
27

28. 3.8. Ethics
In addressing ethical issues for this study, the researcher sent a written permission to the
institution, describing the aim of study, data collection procedures and devices and ensuring that
the findings would be safeguarded. The researcher also sent a letter of authenticity the affiliated
university as an evidence and verification of the authenticity of the research to the institution
(Please see Appendix A, p.48).The researcher also has to have moral obligations to respect the
individuals taken as the subjects of this study (Creswell, 2009). It is particularly of a great
concern in this study where sensitive information such as participants‟ scores and names might
be revealed. To protect this privacy, the researcher informed the participants that their full
nameswould not be revealed.The researcher would have to make sure that the participantswould
not be intruded by the activities involved in this study. This is of ethical concern in this study
because 15 participants were involved in writing journals on a daily basis for two weeks. The
researcher also collected data from questionnaires and interviews after school to minimize
intrusion to school activities observed by these participants. The researcher is well aware of the
fact that the ministry of education of Indonesia, DepartemenPendidikan Indonesia or Depdikbud
owns the copyright of the national exam questions and thus the researcher has worked towards
getting their permission to have the exams used as an instrument of this study. However, due to
the intricate and cumbersome bureaucratic procedure to obtain one, the researcher instead asked
for the school‟s permission to use the exam questions. The school has the authority to use any
sets of questions from the national examination, and has, in fact, regularly used this national
examination questions to test out students‟ English achievement scores, and use these scores to
predict how students will perform in the upcoming national exams. Thus, obtaining the
permission to use the test from the school is thought to suffice.
28

29. 4. Result and Discussions
Question 1: What are the most frequently used out-of-class language learning activities
employed by senior high Indonesian students outside the class?
From the questionnaire data analysis, it is revealed that out of class language learning activities
employed most is listening to songs (mean = 3.63), the second highest is watching DVD (2.15)
followed by playing video games (2.63). The following table ranks the activities in order of
frequency. A mean figure close to four means the activity is done every day, a three means they
are done a few times a week, two means once a week, one means once a month, and a number
close to zero means that students never do the activity.
No. Out-of-class activities done in English Mean
1 Listening to songs 3.63
2 Watching films on TV or DVD 2.63
3 Playing video games 2.15
4 Speaking casually with friends 1.90
5 Reading articles online 1.59
6 Writing Facebook statues 1.08
7 Speaking casually with families 1.00
8 Reading comics or manga online 0.98
9 Writing a blog 0.73
10 Writing a diary 0.71
11 Writing an e-mail 0.63
12 Reading Magazines 0.59
13 Listening to a radio program 0.54
14 Speaking to foreigners 0.53
15 Reading novels 0.46
16 Using a video-chat such as Skype 0.29
Table 1: Out-of-class language learning activities ranked in order of frequency.
29

30. Following Benson‟s (2011) framework, the findings from the journals reveal that the type
of out-class-language learning that the participants utilized most frequently is self-directed
language learning with 280 numbers of mentions, followed by naturalistic language learning (11
mentions), and self-instruction (2 mentions).In self-directed language learning, participants
typically do the activities without the conscious effort to learn English. It is not surprising to
know that they are favored since activities like watching movies, or listening to the music are
inherently interesting in themselves, and might actually form students‟ a daily routine. In the
word of a learner:
‘My primary intention is to play games, I love knowing the benefits these games bring to
my English, they are both addictive and beneficial, but learning English is not the main
reason why I play video games.’(G.N.)
The findings also largely conform to the study by Pickard (1996) who finds that the
prime reason for choosing out-of-class activities employed by 20 advanced German learners of
English was the intrinsic interest value of the activities.
The journal reveals that naturalistic language learning is not preferred much as a popular
out-of-class language learning activities, which can be seen by the shrinking number of activities
mentioned in the journal from 280 down to only 11 mentions. In naturalistic language learning,
learners seek the opportunity to speak in English with native speakers, peers, or their families.
All of the activities reported are casual conversations with friends, except for one case where a
student uses a video chat such as Skype to communicate with his friend abroad. The journal
doesn‟t have any tracks of record where students speak with native speakers.
Self-instructionconstitutes the smallest portion of out-of-class language learning activities
employed by the participants writing the journal. There were only 2 cases of this type of
30

31. OCLLA,which are practicing English spelling for the upcoming spelling bee competitionat
school and finding the meaning of the lyric of a song. In self-instruction, learners make the
conscious effort to learn the language by studying alone without intervention from teachers or
help from peers. The fact that there is a deliberate effort on the part of the learners clearly makes
this type of OCLLA distinct from the previous two types.
Comparing the four skills used in the questionnaire, listening skill-based OCLLA scored
significantly higher (mean = 2.24) than the rest of the skills. The next highest is speaking (0.93),
followed by reading (0.91) and writing (0.79). Data from the journal reveal that listening still
stays at the top (234 mentions), however reading is now ranked in the second place (24
mentions), followed by speaking (22 mentions), and writing (18 mentions). Combining the
figures of listening and reading-based activities, it may be concluded that receptive skills are
used more frequently than that of productive skills (speaking and writing). This finding reflects
the current status of most English language learners in Indonesia who are still passive learners
(Lamb, 2002). They are quite able to understand English but they would find themselves at a
struggle when producing the language.The findings on these four separate skills in turn will be
elaborated in turn.
4.1. Listening
The four activities related to listening skill arelistening to English news or programs on the
radio, watching movies on TV / DVDs, playing video games with English voice-overs, and
listening to songs. For obvious reasons, the activity that scored the highest is listening to songs
(3.63). Indeed, learners would listen hours and hours to English songs and seem to benefit much
31

32. from being exposed to them (Cheung, 2001).Songs also provide a wealthy source of
pronunciation input for learners (Chausanachoti, 2009). In the words of one learner:
‘I learn a great deal of English from songs. Songs give me the right way to pronounce
words in English.’ (N. S.)
Those who study and memorize the lyrics of the songs would also be at an advantage of
gaining natural English expressions and language chunks (Smith, 2003). From the interviews, it
is reported that the vocabularies learned from songs would sometimes be used, although
informally, in their everyday writing such as in their Facebook statuses.Caution has to be
mentioned however, that in order for this listening material to be treated as an intake in
vocabulary acquisition, learners have to pay attention to it (Saville-Troike, 2006).
The next highest score goes to watching movies on TV or DVDs, which in themselves
provide an inherently interesting source of material for learners to pick up English from. When
asked which one activity among all listed in the questionnaires that help improve their English
most, learners would often say they learn a lot from the movies. In the words of one learner:
‘I am a movie addict; I would often go to Kota Kembang to buy movies once every two
days. I used to have two shelves just to store movies. Watching movies have helped me
tremendously, there are lots of words that I gained that I don’t get from my English
lessons. In fact, in the class I would often learn formal words that I seldom use.’(G.N.)
As succinctly expressed by the participant above, learners learn a great deal of English as
they watch movies, notably the everyday English expressions like colloquial and idiomatic
expression (Eken, 2003). Such materials would be difficult to present to learners in the class
because they are context-dependent. Another advantage of watching movies is the availability of
a visual element such as facial expressions and bodily gestures which greatly aids the listening
32

33. comprehension for learners (Harmer, 2007); they may even turn the subtitle on to further aid
their comprehension. However, as such, it is arguably difficult to consider it as a listening
material, since then learners would pay attention to the text as they read, and not from the
dialogues. In this respect, movies as shown in cinema are even worse because learners will look
at the subtitles in their native language, Indonesian. This feature is thankfully absent in most
DVDs. But when there is one, learners tend to pick it as the first subtitle option, bargaining the
advantageous nature of listening to rich L1 dialogues.
The next most frequently used activity which constitutes the third most popular activity
from the questionnaires is playing video games.As produced today, games might feature voice-
overs by which players can listen to the voice of the video game characters. Listening to these L2
dialogues is far more crucial than listening to L2 dialogues in movies. In an adventure game for
example, a failure to understand what they mean would lead to unfortunate consequences in the
game play. In order to make any sense of the story, learners must follow exactly what the game
instructions tell them to, and this is where L2 learning is at play. Most games these days are
played online, in which different players from around the world do the same quest to achieve
certain objectives. Such multi-player online games provide a chance for students to interact with
other players in English especially when the other players are international players, as reported
by one student in the interview:
‘In Warcraft, we have a single player and multiplayer. If I happen to play the multiplayer
mode with Indonesian players, then I would use either English or Bahasa, but of course
when I meet other players, I must use English when communicating with them.’(Y.D.)
Learners would often consult F.A.Q. or walkthrough in the internet in order to help them
survive in the game, which is another receptive skill at work. This is yet another advantage of
33

34. playing games because it constantly asks learners to make use of their English while at the same
time keeping them entertained for hours (Cruz, 2007).
Listening to English radio program is the least frequently used due to the scarcity of such
programs. A radio program here means any regular radio programs such as news report, or a
Friday night horror story-telling, however they are broadcasted in English. It is sobering to know
that, even the activity of listening to the radio itself, regardless of what language is spoken, is
depleting. This is reflected by the fact that listening to the radio is the third least favorite activity
in this study (mean = 0.54).What seems to be a trend now is an internet radio, broadcasted from
software like iTunes. One student reported of having listened to this iTunes radio where she
listened to the announcer broadcasting in English, playing a compilation of songs from the
1990s.
4.2. Reading
In this particular skill, reading online articles received the highest mean score (1.59), followed
by reading comics (0.98), magazines (0.59), and novels (0.46). The scores seem to represent the
value of availability of each of these four media. Reading online article, while being readily
available, is picked up most because of learners‟ immediate need to obtain a source of
information. The instant and highly relevant information which internet can provide far
outweighs the benefits of reading the newspaper or magazine. A student says that she regularly
browses the internet for articlessuch as a movie synopsis or summary on imdb (short for internet
movie data base, can be accessed at http://www.imdb.com/) before deciding what films to buy.
Comics are another excellent out-of-class language learning activity where learners may
acquire language chunks used in context while at the same time they get entertained because of
34

35. its intrinsic interest (Danaher & Hammond, 2011). Most of the type of comics students prefer are
anime, or also referred to as Manga. These Japanese-made comics are available both in Bahasa
Indonesia and English, but learners prefer the latter as they are updated more promptly than the
former. The visual elements in comics aids the comprehension of unfamiliar words encountered
the comics. Such privilege does not extend to novels, which turns novel the least favored
OCLLA in reading skill.
There are many other reasons why reading novel is ranked so poorly in this study. First of
all, it is thought that the school does not have access to a variety of interesting novels that
students can read, aside from the popular ones like Harry Potter or Twilight. Even when they
read those two popular novels, chances are they would read the translated ones. One participant
claimed that she would never again read the unabridged version of these popular series, as her
first attempt proved to be quite incessantly long and therefore making the whole experience of
reading unpleasant. In her words, she said:
‘I heard many people said that the English version can give the best novel reading
experience. So I took the chance, but it took me so long to finish reading that one novel. I
would often ask the meaning of the word every now and then. From that moment on, I
decided that it would be the last one for me, I dread doing another one, because it’s just
too tedious.’(N.A.)
Such unpleasant reading experience is related to our next point of discussion: Reading
novels seem to be a privilege for learners whose English is good enough to cope with the many
unfamiliar literary words. Those who reported of reading novels frequently seem to have the
same strategy of coping with unfamiliar words, in which they guess the words within its context
instead of looking them up in a dictionary. Such strategy training should be taught to students, if
they were to become successful readers. Another viable solution is to introduce and set up an
35

36. extensive reading activity where learners can read simplified books that are targeted for their
current English level.
4.3. Speaking
Within this category, speaking with friends or/and teachers at school receives the highest mean
score (1.90) followed by speaking with family at home (1.00), speaking with native speakers of
English (0.53), and using Skype to chat with friends abroad (0.29). Overall, out-of-class
speaking activities received a remarkably low mean score (0.93). One of the possible reasons for
this is because English learners of Indonesian are largely passive learners (Lamb, 2002). Another
reason is learner‟s lack of sense of security to engage in English conversations openly in public
places. As one student commented:
‘I normally don’t speak English because people would think that I am weird. I am afraid
of people saying that I am putting on airs.’(A.N.)
This hindrance of speakingdue to social negative judgment particularly in EFL contexts
conforms to the study by done Lamb (2002) and Hyland (2004). Furthermore, the choices given
within this skill are not one that learners can use everyday. For example, talking with native
speakers would be difficult because learners do not see them on a daily basis. Even among their
peers, some students claim that they do not often have a partner to speak English with. They feel
that their time is being wasted because whenever they speak English, their friends would just
reply them back in the mother tongue.
Another issue with availability is Skype, which ranks the lowest score in this category. It
could be that they do not know how to use Skype, do not have friends abroad, or do not speak
English even if they have friends abroad and know how to use Skype. The multifaceted and
36

37. complex problem in using Skype clearly makes it the least used OCLLA out all 16 activities
across other skills.
4.4. Writing
In order of frequency from the most used to the least used, the four writing-based learning
activities employed by 59participants in this studyincludewriting Facebook status (1.08), blogs
(0.73), diaries (0.71), and E-mails (0.63). In relation to what has been mentioned before about
negative social judgment, writing Facebook status enable learners to publicly express themselves
without the fear of being humiliated when they write erroneous sentences, as the speaking
counterpart usually do. When writing statuses, learners may use whatever English they have at
their disposal to express themselves. The key benefit of writing is that it gives learners unlimited
time to edit, add, and choose a range of expressions, a feature that is not availablewhen speaking
(Brown, 2001). During the process of editing their written English, learners are continuously
reflecting and analyzing their language to make any necessary changes. For this reason, as short
as it might be, writing status on Facebook in English may be highly beneficial to L2 acquisition.
Frequency wise, writing blogs is placed in the second position after writing English
Facebook statuses.One of the possible reasons why it is ranked second is that blogs could
potentially give tremendous power of giving writers an instant self-recognition because people
may look at the writing and comment positively on it, especially if the comment comes from the
teacher who gives positive and constructive feedback both on the content and the language
(Pinkman, 2005). However, most writers just want to express themselves without wanting to
inform people. Thus, privacy-wise, learners write diaries more.
37

38. Writing e-mails and diaries both received quite low scores, 0.63 and 0.71 respectively,
which means that both are approximately done at least once in a month. Though they may seem
to be similarly low in terms of score, what really sets them apart is the purpose of writing. From
the interviews, those who answered writing e-mails had no choice but to write them in English in
order to communicate with the person they are addressing. On the contrary, when learners write
diaries, they always have that option to write in L1 if they so prefer and their reason to write in
English is clearly because they have the conscious effort to improve their writing skills. Those
who have access to the internet may extend this to blogs.
Question 2: What is the correlation between students’ English achievement and the language
activities they do outside the class?
The discussion has so far been centered on the description of out-of-class learning activities used
by Indonesian high-school learners, but its significance to the actual language learning is still
open to question. To answerwhether these activitieshave any bearings on learning in the
classroom, students‟ current English score is used and compared to the findings in the
questionnaire. It is revealed that there is a relationship between students‟ English achievement
and their engagement to a range of language learning activities outside the class. In general this
conforms to the findings conducted in previous studies which claim that the increase in
frequency of students‟ OCLLA is relative to the improvement in their English performance
(Benson &Reinders, 2011; Lamb, 2002; Marefat&Barbari, 2009; Pearson, 2004). However,
given the scope of limitations set in this study – in which the means of obtaining students‟
achievement is through the standardized National Exam questions, the relationship is found to be
quite weak. Using Pearson correlation coefficient, it is found that the correlation is a mere 0.31.
38

39. Therefore it could be concluded that students‟ engagement to out-of-class language learning
activities has a negligible effect on their English national exam scores. In other words, those who
employ more language learning activities outside will somehow perform better in the exam.
However, this is not to say that OCLLA is the only attribute that can improve students‟ score.
Other intervening variables such as learner‟s motivation, learner‟s learning strategy, and
teacher‟s English competence may also have their roles in the success of students‟ L2
achievement.
Question 3: What are some of the language learning activities employed by students who have
high, mediocre, and poor English scores?
In order to seek the answer to the third research question of this study, students were first divided
in three different groups based on their scores. Grade C for those scoring below 60 (n=29), grade
B for those achieving 60 up to 79 (n=19), and Grade A for those achieving 80 and above (n=11).
After gathering all individual mean scores from the questionnaires, each group‟s OCLLA mean
score is obtained. The study reveals that grade C obtained the lowest mean score (1.0),Grade A
obtained the highest mean score (1.6), and grade B students sit in the middle (1.3).The findings
suggest that, starting from the low grade, there is 0.3 increment mean value as students‟ English
level goes up. In other words, as students‟ English performance increases, their engagement to
out-of-class language learning activities also intensifies. The findings appear to be consistent
with what the previous studies found, in that the high-achieving group tends to employ out-of-
class language learning more than those in mid or low achieving group (Lamb, 2002; Marefatand
39

40. Barbari, 2009).To elaborate this finding further, each group‟s out-of-class learning activities will
be discussed in turn.
4.3.1. Grade C
The table below illustrates the mean scores of OCLLA employed by students from this grade:
Table 2: Out-of-class language learning activities – Grade C.
It can be clearly seen that the most used activity within this group is listening to songs (mean =
3.45). This particular media seems to be their favorite everyday activity. It is also reported that
the language acquired in songs is later used in Facebook statuses. Both activities are preferredas
they do not require students to use much English. This explains why reading novels scored so
poorly in this grade (mean = 0.38). Their English might not be good enough to employ it as an
out-of-class learning activity. As a result, their overall level of English performance is low.
Apparently, this seems to be the case of a chicken-and-egg theory. It presents a casualty
dilemma, in which both the achievement score and out-of-class language learning activities seem
to affect each other and it is unknown which one is the first to cause another (Gass&Selinker,
1994). This suggest that these students are trapped in a vicious cycle, where their English may
not improve much because they do not seek opportunities or means to engage in OCLLA. Their
poor English might inevitably result in a loss of motivation to learn the language, albeit they
know how important studying English is. One learner from this group confesses:
40

41. ‘I personally believe that English is important, and will be especially needed for my
future as when I get a job, or other things. But the thing is, I honestly don’t think I have
enough motivation to study the language.’(R.R.)
Their poor English also raises the confidence issue that these learners face when encountering
native speakers on the street. In the words of one learner:
‘I don’t have the courage to talk with natives, I am not confident, my English is too bad, I can’t
say a word because of my lack of vocabulary, I am just speechless in front of them.’(M.A)
This lack of confidence accounts for the overall score of speaking which is the poorest (0.72),
compared to the other groups (grade B = 1.08, grade A = 1.23). From table 6 (Appendix E, p.
54), it is observed that this lack of confidence in speaking slightly affects other OCLLA as well.
For example, participant no. 28, who exceptionally achieved a mean OCLLA score of 2.5 in this
group, had the confidence of speaking with her friends and family several times a week. In
general, this confidence extends to writing-based skills as well. This particular student might be
more productive in writing because of her exposure to the language in receptive skills, especially
in listening skill. But, why was such a confident and knowledgeable student scored so poorly in
the exam (scored 38)? In other words, she employs the most OCLLA in her group and yet her
English test scored the lowest two. One of the possible explanations for this is that the test itself
is designed to measure mainly reading ability. If we look back at the table, student no. 25 indeed
relatively seldom employs reading-based activity outside the class as compared to the other sets
of skills, which is why she did poorly in this exam.
41

42. 4.3.2. Grade B
In general, students in this group employ OCLLAs more often than Grade C students. In
comparison to the mean score in Grade C, there is a slight improvement on every skill. However,
some activities are employed less often in this group, namely reading novels, writing blogs, and
writing a diary. Apart from novels, the rest is writing-based skill and hence writing decreases
only slightly (from 0.77 to 0.72 in this group). The table below shows out-of-class language
learning activities employed by grade B students:
Listening Reading Speaking Writing
TOTAL
Radio DVD Games Songs Articles Manga Mag Novels NS Peers Family Skype E-mails Blogs Diaries Fb
0.95 3.00 1.95 3.79 1.95 1.05 0.79 0.32 0.74 2.16 1.21 0.21 0.53 0.68 0.63 1.05
1.3
2.42 1.03 1.08 0.72
Table 3: Out-of-class language learning activities – Grade B.
Compared to the previous group, students in grade B employ reading-based skills more
often. The mean score for reading is higher than grade C (from 0.60 to 1.03). It can be argued
that from these reading activities, their L2 achievement is improved. This, in turn causes them to
be more confident speakers, which is reflected in the overall speaking mean score. Although in
general, grade A students employ more speaking activities outside the classroom, it can be
observed that grade B students have slightly higher means particularly in speaking with native
speakers, and speaking with peers, something that could be regarded as speaking English in
public. It can be assumed that grade B students are characterized as risk-takers, carefree
speakers; they speak as much as they can without worrying about how people would think of
their English. A learner from this group says:
‘I enjoy communicating with my friends in English. I speak as much as I can without
worrying about my grammar. Sometimes, it might make them confused, but after I explain
using different words, they can understand and continue the conversation.’(R.S.)
42

43. As fluent as they might be, grade B students may have to come to terms to the fact that
learning grammar is important, because as quoted above, their inadequacy in expressing clearly
themselves may at times cause communication breakdown. However, they should not be too
grammar-conscious that would jeopardize the flow of the speech.
4.3.3. Grade A
The table below illustrates the findings on Grade A students:
Table 4: Out-of-class language learning activities – Grade A.
In comparison to the previous group, there is an improvement on the frequency of out-of-class
learning activities by Grade A, but only slightly. One distinctive characteristic of these high
achievers is that they are avid readers. There is a marked increase in reading score from the
previous group (from 1.03 to 1.50) compared to increments observed in the other three skills. It
could be assumed that their excellent English scores are influenced by their increased exposure
of reading materials outside the class, and vice versa. Grade A students seem to write more,
albeit not substantially, than the previous students from the other two groups. This explains the
significant correlation between reading and writing in L2. Saville-Troike (2006) views reading as
the primary channel for language input, which learners use as a model to follow in their writing.
Compared to grade B students, grade A students seem tobe unwilling to speak outside
their comfort zone. High-achieving students seem to engage more in English conversations if it
is within the confinement of their houses. Group A students also seem to hesitate and tend to
second guess themselves when they speak during the interview; thinking a lot about how they
speak correctly. This grammar-conscious attitude stems from the belief that the best language
43

44. learning strategy is to learn grammar from English exercise books, as stated by two learners in
this group. This finding seems to conform to Krashen‟s theory about acquisition versus learning.
The learned language, such as grammar, may help us monitor our language. But the more we do
so, the less spontaneous we become (Harmer, 2007). Thus, fluency is at stake for these learners.
Video games are another popular activity among these high-achievers. Besides being
inherently interesting in themselves, games are perceived to offer many benefits to these
students, particularly the acquisition of casual, every day English that is not available in the
formal learning contexts in the classroom. The input of these words that are acquired through the
English voice-overs narrated by the actors while they play the game would then be put in
practice as they speak with the other players in multi-player mode. Students from this grade
consciously pay attention to what they say because meaning is crucial during the exchange of
information in the game. Accuracy is important in order to enhance the precision of information
exchange in playing a multi-player game. A learner reports that he would have a dictionary ready
in case he comes across a difficult word in the game. One learner from this group even reports
that, he studies the dictionary, remembering a word on a daily basis. Another learner also states
that, because of game, he learned English more seriously in the class, doing grammar and
vocabulary exercises from the book, especially after his game partners mocked that his English
was not good. In the interview, this learner states:
‘I learn English from grammar exercises for the sake of enhancing my English skills
when communicating with other gamers online. This is because people complained about
my bad English.’(M.G.)
Both looking up words in the dictionary or even studying the dictionary, and doing
grammar exercisesindicate that grade A learners put a lot more conscious effort in learning
44

45. English. For them, these activities have become a part of their lives. They listen, read, speak, and
write in English almost everyday. This increased effort might stem from their inner motivation
and their passion to learn English, which seems to be lacking in grade B or C students. In order
to gain a general overview of these differences, a side-by-side comparison is illustrated below:
Grade A Grade B Grade C
Basic characteristic Avid readers Risk-takers Entertainment lovers
Language skills they
mainly employ in their Listening and Reading Listening and Speaking Listening and Writing
activities
Writing-based activities:
Reading online articles, Reading magazines,
Preferred out-of-class Writing Facebook
playing games, speaking Speaking with friends
learning activities statues, a diary, or
with families and teachers at school
blogs.
Indifferent and
Attitude to learning Highly motivated; Carefree; Learn as they
Inhibited; Trapped in a
English shows effort in learning go and want to
vicious cycle
Fluent speakers, Reticent speakers; very
Grammar-conscious; although they speak in a limited in terms of
Attribute to speaking
pay attention to detail poor command of expression and
English vocabulary
“I don‟t have problems “I dislike English; it is
“I love English and take with learning English. If too difficult for me to
What they would say
it as an inseparable part there is a chance, I don‟t learn. I‟d stay away
about English
of my life” mind spending time from it if I can, unless
with it” it‟s very interesting”
Table 5: A side-by-side characteristics comparison of the three different groups of learners.
45

46. 5. Suggestions for future research.
Due to the constraints of time to conduct the study and the permission to choose the research
participants, future studies could continue and expand the findings set forth in this study by
having a larger number of participants in a different learning context for a longer period of time.
A different set of questionnaires could be used, where the activities presented in the
questionnaires do overlap in language skills. This particular study aims to find out whether the
national English exam, which has been used in Indonesia as a standard measurement of English
achievement in class, correlates with what the students do outside the class. It would be
interesting to see how different kinds of measurement correlate with OCLLA in future
research;perhaps one that targets all the four language skills.
6. Conclusions
This study examines out-of-class language learning activities (OCLLA) carried out by 59 senior
high schools in one particular school in Bandung. The overriding aim of this study is to discover
the link between activities that are employed outside the class and the English achievement in
class. Using Benson‟s (2011) framework, the findings from the journals reveal that the type of
out-class-language learning that the participants utilized most is self-directed language learning.
Specifically, the most popular self-directed language learning activities based on the findings in
this study are listening to songs, watching movies on TV/DVD, and playing video games, all of
whichfall into a passive skill. The study also suggests that learners employ more receptive skills
than productive skills. The findings of this study remain consistent to those that were foundin
previous studies in thatthe receptive skills (listening and writing) were the most widely used out-
of-class language learning activities (Pickard, 1996; Pearson, 2004; Hyland, 2004; Al-Otaibi,
46

47. 2004; Chausanachoti, 2009; Marefat and Barbari, 2009). This reflects the current situation of
Indonesian learners, where most of them are passive learners (Lamb, 2002). This study also
conforms to the findings done by Pickard (1996) which suggests that the OCLLA reflects
learners‟ personal learning style.
The study finds thatthese out-of-class language learning activities seem to correlate with
students‟ English achievement score, albeit not to a significant degree. Those who employ more
language learning activities outside their classroom, tend to havebetter grades. However, caution
should be exercised because there are obviously other intervening variables at play.Teacher‟s
competency both in the language and teaching, students‟ language aptitude, motivation, and
learning strategies are among some of the factors that influence their L2 achievement. The study
also has suggested different learning activities that are preferred by each different group of levels
of English performance.In general, data from the questionnaires reveal that high-achievers
employ more reading activities, mid-achievers use more speaking activities, and the low-
achievers utilize more writing activities.
47

48. References
Al-Otaibi, G. (2004). Language learning strategy use among Saudi EFL students and its
relationship to language proficiency level, gender and motivation.(Doctoral
dissertation).Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No.
3129188).
Anderson, K. (2004). Teachers‟ conceptions of language learning: out-of-class interactions.
Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003.
Aziez, F. (2011). Examining the Vocabulary Levels of Indonesia‟s English National
Examination Texts. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 51, pp. 16-29.
Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research (12thedn.).California: Wadsworth,
CengageLearning.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning (2nd edn.).
Harlow:Pearson Education.
Benson, P., Reinders, H. (2011). Beyond the Language Classroom. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by Principles (2nd edn.). New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th edn.). New York:
PearsonEducation.
Chausanachoti, R. (2009). EFL learning through language activities outside the classroom: A
case study of English education students in Thailand.(Doctoral dissertation).Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. 3363815).
Cheung, C. (2001). The use of popular culture as a stimulus to motivate secondary students‟
English learning in Hong Kong.ELT Journal, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 55-61.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design.California: SAGE Publication.
Cruz, J. (2007). Video Games and the ESL classroom.The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. 13, No.
3.Retrieved May 28, 2012.http://iteslj.org/Articles/Quijano-VideoGames.html
Danaher, K., Hammond, K. (2011). The value of targeted comic book readers.ELT Journal
advanced access, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 1-12.
Eken, A. (2003). You‟ve got mail: a film workshop.ELT Journal, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48

49. Gao, X. (2008). The „English Corner‟ as an out-of-class learning activity.ELT Journal, Vol.61,
No. 1, pp. 60-67.
Gass, S.,Selinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course.NewJersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Harmer, J. (2007).The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th edn.). Essex:
PearsonLongman.
Harmer, J. (2007).How to Teach English. Essex: Pearson Longman.
Hyland, F. (2004).Learning Autonomously: Contextualizing Out-of-Class English Language
Learning.Language Awareness, Vol. 13, No.3, pp. 180-202.
Lai, C., Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology.Computer
Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 317-335.
Lamb, M. (2002). Explaining successful language learning in difficult circumstances.Prospect:
An Australian Journal of TESOL, Vol. 17, pp. 35-52.
Marefat, F., Barbari, F. (2009).The relationship between out-of-class language learning strategy
use and reading comprehension ability. PortaLinguarum, Vol. 12, pp. 91-106.
Mori, S. (2002).The relationship between motivation and the amount of out-of-class
reading.(Doctoral dissertation).Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
(Accession Order No. 3040345).
Nunan.(1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nurweni, A., Read, J. (1999). The English Vocabulary Knowledge of Indonesian University
Students.English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.161-175.
Pearson, N. (2004). The idiosyncrasies of out-of-class language learning: A study of mainland
Chinese students studying English at tertiary level in New Zealand.Proceedings of
theIndependent Learning Conference 2003.
Pickard, N. (1996). Out-of-class language learning strategies.ELT Journal, Vol. 50, No.2,pp.150-
159.
Pinkman, K. (2005). Using blogs in the foreign language classroom: Encouraging learner
independence.THEJALT CALL Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 12-24.
Renandya, W. (2007).The power of extensive reading.RELC Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 133-
149
49

50. Saville, M.,Troike. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Smith, G. (2003). Music and Mondegreens: extracting meaning from noise.ELT Journal, Vol.
57, No. 2, pp. 113-121.
Ucán, J. (2010). Benefits of using extensive listening in ELT.Retrieved 29 May,
2012.http://fel.uqroo.mx/adminfile/files/memorias/borges_ucan_jose_luis.pdf
50

51. APPENDIX A:
LETTER OF AUTHENTICITY
51

52. APPENDIX B:
QUESTIONNAIRE
52

53. APPENDIX C
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Benson‟s framework:
a. Self-instruction:
1. What out-of-class activities do you intentionally do to learn English?
2. Which activities do you believe help improve your English much?
3. Do you consult dictionaries when you find difficult words while reading?
4. Do you do other activities such as vocabulary exercises or TOEFL preparation
exercise?
b. Naturalistic language learning:
1. Who do you usually interact in English with outside the class?
2. Do you find it easy to speak in English with people around you?
3. Do you find it easy to speak with native speakers that you meet on the street?
4. What do you think of the other people‟s judgment on you when you speak English in
public?
c. Self-directed language learning:
1. Are you currently subscribing to any English newspapers / magazines?
2. What kinds of novels do you read?
3. What kinds of songs do you like to listen to?
4. Which video games do you play?
5. Where do you go online for manga / articles?
6. Who do you write E-mail in English to?
7. When you watch movies on DVD, do you use the subtitle on?
8. Could you explain in detail the other activities not mentioned in the questionnaire?
53

54. APPENDIX D
SOME EXCERPTS FROM ENGLISH NATIONAL EXAMINATION 2010/2011
54

55. 55

56. 56