The English Learning Achievement Profile of D3 Students in the Acounting Study Program of the State Polytechnic of Semarang in 2012

Nurul Hamida A teacher at the Accounting Department, State Polytechnic of Semarang Email: nurulpolines@yahoo.com Abstract: This study is conducted in 2012 in order to know the English learning achievement profile of the students in the Accounting Study Program. Furthermore, with the result of this study, hopefully there are some necessary actions as the follow-up of this study which can be taken into consideration in order to improve it. Actually there are six parallel classes for the first and the second year students but there are only five parallel classes for the third year students, however the sample of this study is only one of the classes in the second year which is chosen using purposive random sampling. The second year students are chosen as the sampling since they are in their mid or their time studying in the State Polytechnic of Semarang. And the other one class of the sample is taken from the first year students. The result of this study shows that most of the students get A and only a few of them get C, and none of them gets D or E. In contrast, their TOEIC scores are not very good. Eventhough they do not perform satisfying enough in the TOEIC test. Since the passing grade required by the Study Program is only 400. Therefore, most of them can reach it, with the scores ranging from 400 up to 450. Only very few students get more than 450. The other few of them show bad performance in TOEIC test with the scores under 400.The result of this reseach also shows that although there is an increase but the TOEIC scores of the first year and the second year students do not differ significantly. Keywords: achievement, passing grade, scores INTRODUCTION The State Polytechnic of Semarang is a tertiary vocational educational institution. One of its Study Program is Accounting Study Program. It is D3 program. This Study Program produces graduates who are ready to work in accounting or other work fields related with accounting or economy. Besides accounting as their major, the students must also have good competence in English, since it is necessary, especially in this globalization era. The importance of English in the work fields can be seen from the job advertisements which required good English competence, either active or passive. Therefore, it is necessary to find out the students English learning achievement profile of D3 Accounting Study Program. The Background of the Study The English lessons in Accounting Study Program (D3) are given from the first semester until the fourth semester. The English lessons in the first and second semester are dealing with English for general communication, the differences of these two lessons are in the level of difficulties. Meanwhile, the English lesson for the third semester deals Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora Vol. 12 No. 3, Desember 2012

161

with business in General, and the fourth semester is more concern with Accounting as their majoring. Learning English is not an instant process and it also involves some aspects. Therefore, the success of language learning is influenced by several factors, which can be categorized into three, they are: the teachers, the teaching and learning process and the students themselves. The factors from the teachers which influence the learning outcomes are as follows: the teachers competence, their teaching styles and their ability in managing and control the class, etc. As proposed by Richard (2002: 163) Language teachers may use different kinds of teaching methods and approaches in teaching, depending on their assumptions and beliefs about how students learn and on the kind of methodology that they believe best support the learning process. Meanwhile the factors involve in teaching and learning process which influence the learning outcomes are: the teaching facilities, the teaching materials, teaching aids etc. The factors of the students influencing the success of teaching and learning process are as follows: the students language background, their motivation, and their learning styles, and as well as their learning profile. etc The Problem Statements The English competencies is necessary in the globalization, therefore, it is necessary to find out the English learning achievement profile of the students. Since it reflects the result of the teaching and learning process in the class. The English learning achievement profile might be necessary for knowing the English learning and teaching process, and furthermore for considering how to improve the language teaching in D3 Accounting Study Program. Research Objective The objective of this study is to find out the English learning achievement profile of the students in Accounting Study Program, Semarang State Polytechnic. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND There are a lot of discussions about foreign and second language learning and one of them is that Learning a second or foreign language is a long and complex undertaking and many variables are involved in the language acquisition process. Brown (2000: 1) also stated that During the past decade, educational researches have identified a number of factors that account for some of differences in how students learn. One of these factors, learning style, is broadly described as cognitive, affective, psychological traits that are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment (McGrath, 2001). Brown (2000:1) states that total commitment, total involvement, total physical, intellectual, and emotional response are necessary to successfully send and receive messages in a foreign language. Many variables are involved in the acquisition process. Language learning is not a set of easy steps that can be programmed quickly. To learn a language, students have four needs: they must be exposed to the language. They must understand its meaning and structure. And they must practice it. Language plays a central role in the development of the intellectual, social and emotional of the learners, and it contributes to the success of studying other subjects as well. Furthermore, language is a means of communication. People should have the ability to communicate, that is the ability to understand and produce oral and written texts. Those abilities involve four language skills. Hood et al cited in Feez and Joyce (2002: 102) proposed that those skills are clustered under the general headings of the four macro

162

The English Learning Achievement Profile of D3 Students in the Acounting Study Program of the State Polytechnic of Semarang in 2012 (Nurul Hamida)

skills - listening, reading, writing and speaking. Often the macro skills are paired in terms of spoken and written language in the following way: (a) Listening and speaking (or oracy), (b) Reading and writing (or literacy). This is because the skills which support listening are complementary to the skills which support speaking. They both constitute the same channel of communication. In the same way the skills which support reading are complimentary to the skills which support writing. Furthermore, listening skill and reading skill are called receptive skills, while writing skill and speaking skill are called production skills. According to some dictionaries learning is acquiring or getting knowledge of a subject or skill by study, experience, or instruction. In a more detailed definition Learning is a relatively permanent change in a behavioral tendency and is the result of reinforced practice. (Kimble & Garmecy cited in Brown, 2000: 7). Therefore, Language learning is a social activity and is the outcome of collaboration between the teacher and the student and between the student and the other students in the group. (Feez and Joyce, 2002: 25). And the language learners benefit from: (a) Explicit course requirement, (b) Explicit knowledge about language, and (c) The scaffolded support of a teacher. Halliday cited in Feez and Joyce (2002: 68), has pointed out that there are three aspects to learning a language: while students learn language, they are learning more about the world through language and they are learning about language and how it works. Brown (2000: 7) breaks down the components of the definition of learning a language as follows: a. Learning is an acquisition. b. Learning is retention of information or skill. c. Retention implies storage systems, memory, and cognitive organization. d. Learning involves active, conscious focus on and acting upon events outside or inside the organism. e. Learning is relatively permanent but subject to forgetting. f. Learning involves some form of practice, perhaps reinforced practice. g. Learning is a change of behavior. TEFL is the teaching of English as a Foreign Language; so it can take place in any country, especially in a non English speaking country. Although English is considered as a foreign language and not as a second language in Indonesia; however, our government realizes that English is very important in the globalization era, since it is as an international language. Therefore, English is included in one of the compulsory subjects taught in schools. Feez and Joyce (2002: 8-9) describe Curriculum as a general statement of goals and outcomes, learning arrangements, evaluation and documentation relating to the management of programs within an educational institution. Meanwhile, syllabus is the plan of what is to be learnt in a course of study, which is usually affected by the educational and socio-political environment of the nation. Richards (2002: 1) describes the history of language teaching throughout the century as follows: much of the impetus for changes in approaches to language teaching came from changes in teaching methods. The method concept in teaching the notion of a systemic set of teaching practices based on a particular theory of language and language learning is a powerful one and the quest for better methods has been the pre-occupation of many teachers and applied linguists since the beginning of the twentieth century. Many methods have come and gone in the last 100 years in pursuit of the best method. In order to keep up with the development in the society, our government has attempted to develop the education in our country, and one of the ways is by developing and improving the Curriculum and the syllabus as well. Government Regulation No. 19 Year 2005 about the The Standard of National Education describes and regulates the Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora Vol. 12 No. 3, Desember 2012

163

curriculum being applied in our country at this moment. And in chapter X article 36, it explains and manages the implementation of the curriculum in our country. According to Feez and Joyce (2002: 2) a syllabus is an explicit and coherent plan for a course of study. The syllabus is a guide or map for the teachers and the learners which may need to be altered once the course commences. A syllabus is constructed by selecting and sequencing content, based on explicit objectives. Meanwhile, a curriculum is a general statement of goals and outcomes, learning arrangements, evaluation and a documentation relating to the management of programs within an educational institution. Meanwhile, according to the Act no 20 year 2003 about SISDIKNAS it is stated that curriculum is a plan and an arrangement of the outcomes, the content and the teaching materials, as well as the guideline for conducting teaching and learning activities in order to reach certain goals. Based on the Act no. 20 year 2003 chapter 1X article 35, it is stated that the Standard of National Education in Indonesia consists of Content Standard, Process Standard, Graduate Competency Standard, Educator Standard, Structure and infrastructure Standard, Management Standard, Funding Standard, and Evaluation Standard, in which they are all have to be improved gradually and in accordance with the plan. Research Methods Since English is only given in the first and second year students, so the total population of this study are 12 classes; 6 parallel classes from the first year students and 6 parallel classes from the second year students. The samples of this study is only one class from the first year students and the other class is from the second year students, so the total samples of this study is two classes, which are taken using purposive random sampling. The data used in this research are the TOEIC scores and the student marks in their English lessons. The accounting students get English lessons from the first semester up to the fourth semester in sequence. And the English marks used in this research is the students marks in their English lessons in that semester. Therefore, for the first year students, the marks being used in this research are from General English 1 lesson, and the marks of the second year students are taken from Bushiness English 1 The data analysis of this research is comparing and describing the students marks in their English lessons and with their TOEIC scores. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The result of this study shows that most of the students in Accounting Study Program, both the students in the first and second year, can pass the passing grade of the TOEIC Test stated by the Study Program that is 400. It can be seen from their TOEIC Scores that the average TOEIC score of the students in the second year is 469.5 Meanwhile the average TOEIC score for the students in the first semester is 438.92. Although in general it can be said that most of the students in Accounting Study Program can passs the pasing grade of the TOEIC Test, however, there are still some of them perform bad in it. The lowest TOEIC score of the students in the second semester is 295 and the highest is 735. From 26 students, the students who have scores more than 400 are 17 students (65.39%), and the rest have scores less than 400. The scores of the students in the second year are presented in table 1.

164

The English Learning Achievement Profile of D3 Students in the Acounting Study Program of the State Polytechnic of Semarang in 2012 (Nurul Hamida)

Table 1. TOEIC Scores of The Second Year Students

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NAME Student 2 .A Student 2 .B Student 2 .C Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2 Student 2
nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

LISTENING SCORES 280 310 145 200 358 145 260 285 220 200 405 385 195 290 220 210 213 220 300 325 260 321 200 230 190 275 255.46

READING SCORES 220 345 185 280 255 150 185 150 200 180 290 295 200 265 175 110 180 155 240 145 135 170 160 185 170 290 204.42

TOTAL SCORES 500 470 225 480 548 296 375 435 420 380 695 680 395 555 395 255 393 375 540 470 395 491 190 415 360 565 434.54

.D .E .F .G .H .I .J .K .L .M .N .O .P .Q .R .S .T .U .V .W .X .Y .Z

Average Score

Meanwhile, for the students in the first year who have TOEIC scores more than 400 are 13 students out of 24 students. It is surprising that the highest TOEIC score of the students in the first year is 805 which is higher than the highest score of the students in the second year. However, although not very significant, the average TOEIC score of the students in the second year is still higher comparing to the average TOEIC score of the students in the first year. Although there is an increase, however, this research result also shows that the students of Accounting Study Program in the second year do not have much improvement in TOEIC Test comparing to the students in the first semester. The different of the average TOEIC score of the students in the second year to the first year students is only 30.58. The result of this study shows that both of the students in the second and first year perform better in listening section than in reading section in TOEIC test. From the 26 students in the second year students, most students (20 students) have higher TOEIC

Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora Vol. 12 No. 3, Desember 2012

165

scores in Listening section, and only six students (23.08%) have higher scores in Reading section. Similar with the students in the second year, most of the students in the first year, 21 students (88%) have higher scores in listening, and only three students (12%) have higher reading scores. It can be seen in their scores which are presented in table 2. Table 2. TOEIC Scores of The First Year Students No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NAME Student 1st.A Student 1st.B Student 1st.C Student 1st.D Student 1st.E Student 1st .F Student 1st.G Student 1st.H Student 1st.I Student 1st.J Student 1st.K Student 1st.L Student 1st.M Student 1st.N Student 1st.O Student 1st.P Student 1st.Q Student 1st.R Student 1st.S Student 1st.T Student 1st.U Student 1st.V Student 1st.W Student 1st.X Average Score LISTENING SCORES 210 155 160 330 260 130 410 195 260 310 265 320 375 130 195 245 260 280 220 115 200 205 225 250 237.71 READING SCORES 185 135 160 345 155 140 395 155 230 255 200 265 350 115 155 250 230 220 185 55 160 160 105 224 201.21 TOTAL SCORES 395 290 320 675 415 270 805 350 490 565 465 585 725 245 350 495 490 500 405 170 360 365 330 474 438.92

If the difference between the student listening score and the reading score is less than 100, it is consider not significant. And there are 19 students in the second year (73.08%) do not have very significant differences between the listening and reading score; that is less than 100. From the 73.08%, 23.08% have higher scores in Reading section and the rest have higher scores in listening. There are only seven students (26.92%) who have significant different, which range from 100 up to 136. However, none of those seven students who have higher reading scores has significant difference. Meanwhile, there are only two students in the first year (8.3%) who have significant difference between the listening score and the reading score. The rest of them (99.7%) do not have significant difference.

166

The English Learning Achievement Profile of D3 Students in the Acounting Study Program of the State Polytechnic of Semarang in 2012 (Nurul Hamida)

The average listening score in TOEIC for the students in the second year is 255.46. The lowest listening score is 145 and the highest score is 405. Comparing to the average listening scores in the first year, the students in the second year is 17.75 higher. The average listening score of the students in the first year is 237.71, with the lowest score is 115 and the highest score is 410. The average reading score of the students in the second year is 214.04, and the students in the first year is 201.21. Although the different between the students in the second and the first year is not very significant, but the second year students have 12.83 higher reading score in average. The lowest reading score for the students in the second year is 110, and the highest score is 350. Meanwhile for the students in the first year, the highest score for reading is the same with the students in the second year, that is 350. However, the lowest reading score in the first year students is very bad, that is only 55. Besides describing the scores of the students in the TOEIC test, this study also describes the marks of the students in their English lessons in that semester, and then compares them. However, the students in the first and second year have different English lessons. The English lesson for the students in the second year is called Business English 1, and the students in the first year get General English 1. The final mark of the students is taken from the average of their three marks, they are formative test, mid semester test and final test. In general it can be said that the achievement of the students in the second year in their English lesson, Business English 1, is good enough, since the average of their final mark is 80.31. This means that almost all of them get A. It can be seen from their marks as shown in table 3. It shows that 17 students (65.38%) have very good marks, that is A. There are four students (15.38%) get B, and the rest (five students) get C. There is no student in the second year get less than C. Table 3. The English marks of the students in the second year NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NAME Student 2nd .A Student 2nd .B Student 2nd .C Student 2 nd .D Student 2 nd .E Student 2 nd .F Student 2 nd .G Student 2 nd .H Student 2 nd .I Student 2 nd .J Student 2 nd .K Student 2 nd .L Student 2 nd .M Student 2 nd .N Student 2 nd .O Student 2 nd .P Student 2 nd .Q Student 2 nd .R Formative Test 80 95 65 90 90 60 85 85 85 85 95 90 75 80 80 85 95 65 Mid Test 80 90 60 80 85 65 80 90 80 80 90 80 70 70 70 85 95 60 Final Test 75 90 60 85 88 60 80 85 80 80 95 85 75 70 70 85 95 65 Final Mark 78 92 62 85 88 62 82 87 82 82 93 85 73 73 73 85 95 63 Remark B A C A A C A A A A A A B B B A A C

Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora Vol. 12 No. 3, Desember 2012

167

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Student 2 nd .S Student 2 nd .T Student 2 nd .U Student 2 nd .V Student 2 nd .W Student 2 nd .X Student 2 nd .Y Student 2 nd .Z Average

60 95 90 65 85 90 85 90 82.5

60 95 85 65 80 85 80 85 78.7

65 95 90 65 80 85 80 85 79.54

62 95 88 65 82 87 82 87 80.31

C A A C A A A A

From the 17 students in the second year who get A for their English lesson, 12 of them can reach the passing grade of the TOEIC test, that is more than 400. Meanwhile the other five students can not reach the passing grade, but just almost to reach it since their TOEIC scores are just slightly below 400 (ranges from 350 up to 390). There are four students in the second year get B in their English lesson, and the three of them can reach the passing grade of the TOEIC test (400), and the other one student gets 395, almost reaching the passing grade of the TOEIC test. Only 28.57% (six people) of the second year students who have good marks in their English lesson have TOEIC scores less than 400. So almost all (71.43%) of the students in the second year who get A and B for their English lesson, can reach the passing grade in TOEIC Test, and their scores range from 400 up to 735. This means that the students in the second year who have good achievement in their English lesson can reach the passing grade of the TOEIC test which is stated by the Study Program. There are only five students in the second year get C, and the three of them have TOEIC scores less than 400, and only two of them have higher scores than 400. Meanwhile the achievement of the students in the first year in their English lesson which is called General English 1 is presented in table 4. From that table it can be seen that all of the students get good marks because there is no student gets C or less than C. All of them (100%) get A or B. There are 15 students (62.5%) get A and the rest (37.5%) get B. Although the students in the first year have different performance in TOEIC test, not all of them have good scores, even one of them gets very low score in TOEIC score that is 170, but in general their English marks are all good. The description of the marks of the English lesson for the students in the first year is presented in table 4. The average mark of the formative test is 84.17, and the average mark of the mid semester test is 81.9, and the average mark for the final test is 81.88. So the average of the final mark of the students in the first year is 82.71. Therefore, based on the result of this study, the students in the first year have very good achievement in their English lesson. Table 4. The English marks of the students in the first year NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 NAME Student 1st.A Student 1st.B Student 1st.C Student 1st.D Student 1st.E Student 1st .F Formative Test 90 90 75 95 95 80 Mid Test 90 80 75 95 95 70 Final Test 90 85 75 95 95 75 Final Mark 90 85 75 95 95 75 Remark A A B A A B

168

The English Learning Achievement Profile of D3 Students in the Acounting Study Program of the State Polytechnic of Semarang in 2012 (Nurul Hamida)

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Student 1st.G Student 1st.H Student 1st.I Student 1st.J Student 1st.K Student 1st.L Student 1st.M Student 1st.N Student 1st.O Student 1st.P Student 1st.Q Student 1st.R Student 1st.S Student 1st.T Student 1st.U Student 1st.V Student 1st.W Student 1st.X Average

90 75 90 85 90 100 80 75 85 75 90 95 85 75 75 70 75 85 84.17

90 75 90 80 80 90 85 75 85 75 85 90 85 75 75 75 70 80 81.9

90 75 90 80 85 95 80 70 85 75 80 90 85 75 75 70 70 80 81.88

90 75 90 82 85 95 82 73 85 75 85 92 85 75 75 72 72 82 82.71

A B A A A A A B A B A A A B B B B A

From table 4, it can be seen that there are 15 students get A in English lesson, and the rest nine students get B. There is no student gets less than B. However from those 15 students, 13 students can reach the passing grade in the TOEIC test, with the scores between 400 up to 805, and the rest of the two students get less than 400 in TOEIC test. There are nine students get B in their English lesson. From those nine students, seven of them get 245 up to 365 in TOEIC test so they do not reaach the passing grade. Even the rest of the two students, one of them performs very bad in the TOEIC test, with the score only 170. And the other one, although he gets B in his English lesson but he can reach the passing grade with his TOEIC scores is 495. Comparing the TOEIC scores of the students in the first semester and in the second semester, it is very surprising since there is no significant increase or improvement. THE IMPLICATION OF THE RESEACH The learning achievement of the students reflects the success of the teaching and learning process. Therefore, the achievement of the students in language learning which is measured using their marks in English lessons and their TOEIC scores shows the result of the teaching and learning proccess in English lesson. The result of this study shows that most of the students get A for their English lesson and most of them can reach the passing grade required by the Study program. Some of them get bad marks and can not reach the passing grade of the TEIC test, eventhough the passing grade of the TOEIC in Accounting Study Program is not very high. Moreover, the TOEIC scores of the students in the first and second year do not differ significantly. Consiquently, the quality of English learning and teaching process, which invoves several factors, must be evaluated and then must be improved in order to improve the students learning achievement.

Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora Vol. 12 No. 3, Desember 2012

169

CONCLUSION Based on the result of the research it can be said that most of the students in Accounting Study Program show very good (excellent) achievement in their English lesson, it can be seen from their marks in English lesson that most of them get A. Eventhough in general their scores in TOEIC Test are not satisfying, but they can reach the passing grade of the TOEIC test required by the Study Program, with their TOEIC scores ranging from 400 up to 450, and only very few students get more than 450, and the rest of them get less than 400. Besides that, the TOEIC scores of the students in the first year and in the second year do not differ significantly. The result of the research also shows that most of the students who get good marks in their English lessons can reach the passing grade of the TOEIC test required by the Study Program. There are only very few students who get bad marks in their English lessons can reach the passing grade of the TOEIC test, or vice versa. REFERENCES Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed). New York: Pearson Education. Feez, Susan and Helen Joyce. 2002. Text-Based Syllabus design. Sidney: Macquarie University Press. McGrath, Ian. 2001. Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Pinker, Stephen. 1994. Language Instinct: How The Mind Creates Language. New York: William Morrow. Richards, Jack. C. 2002. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia no,20 Tahun 2003 Tentang SISDIKNAS0 Sistem Pendidikan Nasional. 2006. Bandung: Focusmedia.

170

The English Learning Achievement Profile of D3 Students in the Acounting Study Program of the State Polytechnic of Semarang in 2012 (Nurul Hamida)