Compensation strategies in speaking activities for non-English department students: Poor and competent speakers

This study investigated the compensation strategies which were used by competent and poor speakers to avoid communication gap in speaking activities. This study used descriptive quantitative design. Data collection used an observation sheet and a questionnaire. The findings showed that the strategy which dominant used by either competent speakers or poor speakers as their group tendencies that was selecting the topic with the same overall average score of 4.0; competent speakers mostly used selecting the topic with the overall average of 4.0, adjusting or approximating the message with the overall average of 3.6 and using mime or gesture with the overall average of 3.5; poor speakers also mostly used selecting the topic with the overall average of 4.0 and coining word of 3.5. Competent speakers much more used compensation strategies than poor speakers. Thus, its major implication for pedagogy is that compensation strategies are extremely useful as guidance to avoid communication gap in speaking activities.


INTRODUCTION
Speaking is the process of interacting and constructing meaning that receives and processes information Syafryadin et al. (2019). However, There are still large number of problems faced whoever studies English as foreign language particularly in applying speaking English. It is hard for the students in determining or choosing such strategy which is proper for helping them to be a competent speaker. This condition also happens with the students of foreign language learner (FLL) in Indonesia. Those cases make some experts on psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic interest to show up their view point in the process of choosing appropriate strategies in using English a foreign language communicatively. Learning strategies used by individual or the student to assist them to be more comprehension and receive more information Graham (1997). O"malley and &amp;chamot (1990) in Prabawa says that competent learners use proper learning strategy and conscious with their existences as learner and the process of learning they apply Prabawa (2016).
Over all, each expert has own paradigm in diagnosing problems in speaking strategies to avoid the gap of communication. However, Oxford (1990a), compensation strategies are aimed to lead the students to be easier in learning and communicating in foreign language. Therefore, she further stated that what Chamot suggests with proper guidance, learner of foreign language could become more aware of certain strategies they never thought on their own and that will contribute to learning efficiency and effectiveness.
There were some researchers who had conducted the study about compensation strategies. Karbalaei and &amp;negin (2014) searched about compensation strategies on tracking movement in EFL learners' speaking skill. In this research, the researchers aimed to study compensation strategies used by Iranian elementary EFL learners across the speaking skill. The participants of the research were the sample of 120 EFL elementary male and female learners whose ages ranged between 11 and 25 at a language institute in Rostam, Iran were homogenized through the standardized Key English Test (KET). It is different from this study. The participants of this study were focusing on competent and poor speakers as participants of the study with lottery system in determining sample from a population of EFL in English StudyProgram at one of the universities in Kendari, Indonesia. Another study conducted the research on compensation strategies namely Hanifa (2016). Gani et al. (2015) investigated the language learning strategies in learning speaking used by poor performance student. The main focus of Hanifa (2016) was only on poor performance students as the participant of the study and used some strategies besides compensation strategies, however in this research, not only had difference participants, namely competent and poor speakers, but also used of specific strategies, that is compensation strategies. Gharbavi and Mousavi (2012) also found in their research that high level learners used greater number of strategies to develop their language skills. This finding was in accordance with Zare (2012) said that language learning strategies have received a particular attention since the late 1970s. Many of the initial studies on language learning strategies were aimed at defining the "Good" language learner. The choice of certain strategies is also crucial to build the students' skill. Furthermore, there are many factors that influence the choice of strategy, including to the choice of compensation strategies in speaking activities. These factor such as motivation, comfort, value, and integrative orientation and so many more. Mistar et al. (2014) found that the use of strategies of learning speaking was significantly different with the successful learners reporting higher intensity of use than the less successful learners did. They explain that the successful learners are better at employing various strategies to learn speaking skill than the less successful learners are.
Based on the problems and previous studies, the writers investigated what compensation strategies mostly used in overcoming limitation in speaking activities to avoid the gap of communication. Compensation strategies are an alternative strategy to guide students in overcoming their difficulty in mastering language. In addition, the writers also investigated compensation strategies mostly used either by competent speaker or poor speaker, especially in the classroom speaking activities. In the case of communication classroom, Hussain (2017) stated that the available environment of the learner is mother tongue in his surroundings; therefore, the teaching learning strategy should differ greatly. Furthermore, Razmjoo et al. (2011) view that language learning instruction is a teach-ing approach that aims to raise learner awareness of learning strategies and provide learners with systematic practice, reinforcement and self monitoring of their strategy use while attending to language learning activities. In this case, language learning activities are related to speaking activities in avoiding communication gap. This study aimed to explain the compensation dominant strategies applied by the students of semester 4 in speaking activities to avoid communication gap, described the compensation strategies mostly used by competent speakers and knew compensation strategies mostly used by poor speakers.

METHODS
This study applied descriptive quantitative design which its aim is to describe the fact or area interest factually and accurately. The choice of descriptive design is simply because of this study only aimed to find out the compensation strategies are mostly used by the students in speaking activities without comparing each strategy, make prediction, or something like that. This is in line with Walidin et al. (2015) said that descriptive knowledge appears when someone could describe, drawing anything specifications, characters, and phenomenon that is clear in his sight and that description done objectively or righteousness. Thus, this study is not to seek or to explain relationship, test hypothesis, make prediction, or gets a meaning and implication" Isaac and Michael in Malfinas (2008). The population of this study consists of 83 students, where competent speakers consist of 24 students and poor speakers of 25 students at Non-English study program at one of the universities in Kendari. They are divided into two classes, namely odd class and even class. Because of those classes are homogeneity where there is no divided of class based on the students' achievement, so the writers chose event class through lottery system. The writers also used simple random sampling through lottery system, where all the individuals in the defined population have equal and independent chance of being selected as a number of a sample. In descriptive research it is suggested to take the sample 10-20% from the total population. Further that, great number of sample in a research will be reduced biases of the data (Adapted from Ary in Malfinas (2008). However, it is difficult to control great number of sample while the writer wants to get an accurate data. Therefore, the writer considered that the less sample which used the more accurate data could be got. Then, the writer took about 20 % of poor speakers from total population of 25 students and also about 20 % from competent speakers from total population of 24 students. So, the total number of sample chosen is 10 students (5 for competent speakers and 5 for poor speakers). The choice of competent speakers and poor speakers were based on the students' speaking II final score. In this case, the students with speaking II final score got A were categorized as competent speakers and C categorized as poor speakers. The categorization relied on the characteristic of Good and Poor Language Learner. However, the researcher found that the students with A and C final score were more than 5 students. Therefore, to determine which students would be used as competent and poor speakers, the researcher also used lottery system.
In collecting data, the writers used questionnaire which was adopted from Oxford (1990b) and observation sheet. Furthermore, the identification of compensation strategies applied by the students was in observation sheet. In order to determine which compensation strategies mostly used by the students, the questionnaire guided by Oxford (1990a), namely Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). This strategy helps students to be conscious with strategy they use in learning language and also helps teacher to teach speaking more successfully. In addition, the number of questionnaire was of 40 items of compensation strategies in speaking activities. These strategies involve: switching to the mother tongue for 5 items; getting help for 5 items; using mime or gesture for 5 items; avoiding communication partially or totally for 5 items; selecting the topic for 5 items; adjusting or approximating the message for 5 items; coining word for 5 items; and using a circumlocution or synonym for 5 items. So, each strategy consists of 5 items. The data analyzed based on nominal scale of the result of students' SILL average for each part of compensation strategies which is also accordance with Oxford (1990a).
The writers analyzed the data collection under nominal scale by the use of scoring system accordance with Oxford (1990a). The result each compensation strategies score were added up and calculated by for every category to find out the overall and average score. Its procedures can be seen in the appendices of general instructions to administrators of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). The overall and average score transferred into the compensation strategies commonly used in speaking activities either by competent speakers or poor speakers. This commonly strategies used to show the compensation strategies result for each speaker and also the group tendencies. Then, the nominal scale of data analysis based on the score got the speakers as in the following. (1) 3.5 to 5.0 indicate a high level of development in that particular type of compensation strategies, (2) 2.5 to 3.4 indicate medium level of development in that particular type of compensation strategies. (3) 1.0 to 2.4 indicates low level of development in that particular type of compensation strategies.

Findings
The findings of this study were taken from observation sheet and questionnaire analysis. The Analysis and its description can be seen as follows:

Observation Sheet
The result of observation sheet found that there were some strategies applied by competent speakers such as switching to the mother tongue for one time; getting help for five times; using mime or gesture for three times; adjusting or approximating the message for one time, avoiding communication partially or totally for one time, and using a circumlocution or synonym. In addition, the researcher found that poor speakers tended to speak less than competent speakers. They only applied few strategies such as using mime or gesture for one time and getting help for two times. For the strategy of selecting the topic, there was no appeared because all topics in speaking activities (either in form of presentation, group discussion as well as in pairs) were chosen or provided by the lecture. For more explanation, it can be seen in Figure 1 .

FIGURE 1 | Types of compensation strategies applied by competent and poor speakers
Based on the data in the Figure 1, it is found that competent speakers that consist of speaker a, b, c, d and e used some strategies in their speaking activities process. Speaker a tended to use getting help. Student b tended to apply switching to the mother tongue and using mime or gesture as their strategy. Speaker c tended to used avoiding communication partially or totally and using a synonym. Speaker d tended to use coining word and using a synonym. Speaker e tended to use getting help and using mime or gesture. Next, poor speakers that consist of speaker f, g, h, i and j also used some strategies in their speaking activities process. Speaker f used nothing of compensation strategies. Speaker g used the strategy of using mime or gesture. Speaker h used mime or gesture. Speaker i used getting help and using mime or gesture. And, Speaker j used he strategies of getting help and using mime or gesture. From the data, the writers found that small quantity of strategy used caused of the tendencies of poor speakers were spoken less and tended to read the journal a lot than spoke out with their own word to describe the content of journal or event for giving comment toward their friends in speaking activities process. Therefore, it is hard for the writers to determine compensation strategies applied by competent speakers and poor speakers either for their own (individually) or in group tendencies. However, the data from observation had given such a signal of the existence of compensation strategies in speaking activities' usage.

Questionnaire
This section presents clearly the different kinds of compensation strategies that are mostly used by each competent and poor speaker in the form of SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) and also their both tendencies. Each speaker consists of 5 speakers. The names of competent speakers are symbolized with speaker a, b, c, d, and e, while poor speaker are symbolized with speaker f, g, h, i, and j. The findings can be summarized as in the following table of averages and overall averages SILL result for both competent speakers and poor speaker as in Table 1. Letter H and M are category for high; medium (M) and low (L) of SILL result of competent speakers. In addition, number1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are type of compensation strategies ; 1 as switching to the mother tongue, 2 as getting help, 3 as using mime or gesture, 4 as avoiding communication partially or totally, 5 as selecting the topic, 6 as adjusting or approximating the message, 7 as coining word, and 8 as using a circumlocution or synonym.
Based on the Table 1, competent speakers used different compensation strategy. From the eight compensation strategies, getting help takes the first position, with the average score 4. And the last positions are selecting the topic and the strategy of avoiding communication partially or totally with the same average score 2.6. The third position, the fourth position, the fifth position and the last position have same category, namely in the medium category. For competent speaker b, it indicates that the first position placed selecting the topic and using gesture with the same average score of 4.4. The last position placed adjusting or approximating the message with the average score 2.4. The average score of 4.4, and 3.8 categorized as high level by means that these strategies most always used by student b. Next, the average score of 3.4, 3.0 and 2.6 categorized as medium level by means that those strategies somewhat used. Last, the average of 2.4 categorized as low level by means that these strategies never or almost never used by the speaker.
Competent speaker c, it indicates that the first position placed selecting the topic with the average score 4.6. And, the last position placed avoiding communication with the average score 1.8. In addition, the averages score of 4.6, 4.2, and 3.8 means that these strategies are mostly always used by student c. The average score of 3.2 means that this strategy is somewhat used. Last, the average score of 2.4 and 1.8 categorized as low level by means that these strategies are never or almost never used. For competent speaker d, it shows that the first position placed selecting the topic with the average score 4.4. The last position placed switching to or altering to the mother tongue and avoiding or ejecting communication partially or totally with the average score 2.2. The average score of 4.4, 4.0, and 3.8 categorized as high level by means that those strategies are almost always used by speaker d. The average score of 3.2, 2.8, 2.6 are categorized as medium level which by means that these strategies somewhat used. And the average score of 2.2 is categorized as low level by means that this strategy is somewhat used in speaking activities.
For competent speaker e, it shows that selecting the topic placed the first position from other compensation strategies with the average score 4.4. The last position placed avoiding communication partially or totally with the average score 2.2. The average score of 4.4 and 3.6 categorized as high level by means that this strategy is always or almost always used by the student e. The average score of 3.4, 3.2, and 2.6 categorized as medium level where these strategies somewhat used. In addition, the average score of 2.4 and 2.2 categorized as low level by means that these strategies are never or almost never used by student e in speaking activities.
Notes: a. Letter H and M are category for high; medium (M) and low (L) of SILL result of poor speakers. b. Number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are type of compensation strategies ; 1 as switching to the mother tongue, 2 as getting help, 3 as using mime or gesture, 4 as avoiding communication partially or totally, 5 as selecting the topic, 6 as adjusting or approximating the message,7 as coining word, and 8 as using a circumlocution or synonym.
Based onTable 2 for poor speaker f shows that selecting the topic placed the first position from other compensation strategies with the average score 3.8. The last position placed Using mime or gesture with the average score 1.2. The average score of 3.8 and 3.6 categorized as high level by means that those strategies always or almost always used by the speaker f. The average score 2.8 categorized as medium level where this strategy somewhat used. In addition, the average score 1.8, 1.6, 1.4 and 1.2 categorized as low level by means that those strategies never or almost never used by speaker e in speaking activities.
For poor speaker, it shows that selecting the topic placed the first position from other compensation strategies with the average score 5.0. And, the last position placed avoiding communication with the average score 1.8. The average score of 5.0, 4.0, and 3.8 categorized as high level by means that these strategies always or almost always used by the speaker g. The average score 3.2 categorized as medium level where the student somewhat used this strategy in speaking activities. And, score of average of 2.0 and 1.8 categorized as low level where the student never or almost never used these strategies.
For poor speaker h, it shows that getting help placed the first position from other compensation strategies with the average score 3.6. The sixth position placed using synonym with the overall average of 1.4. The average score of 3.6 categorized as high level by means that that strategy always or almost always used by the student h. The average score 3.4 and 3.2, and 3.0 categorized as medium level where the student somewhat used those strategies in speaking activities. The average score 2.4, 2.2 and 1.4 categorized as low level by means that the student h never or almost never used that strategy. For poor speaker I, it shows that selecting the topic placed the first position from other compensation strategies with the average score 4.0. The  last position placed Avoiding communication is with the average score of 2.2. The average score 4.0 and 3.6 categorized as high level by means that that strategy always or almost always used by the student i. The average score of 3.2 and 3.0categorized as medium level where the student somewhat used these strategies in speaking activities. The average score of 2.4 and 2.2 categorized as low level by means that the student h never or almost never used that strategy.
For poor speaker j, it shows that selecting the topic placed the first position from other compensation strategies with the average score 5.0. Avoiding communication placed the last position with the overall average of 1.8 placed the last position.
The average score of 5.0 and 4.4, 4.2 and 3.8 categorized as high level by means that these strategies always or almost always used by the student j. The average score of 3.2 categorized as medium level where the student somewhat used these strategies in speaking activities. Finally, the score of 2.4 and 1.8 categorized as low level where categorized that the students never or almost never used these strategies.

Discussion
Grice in Kronfeld and Searle (1990) stated that achievement of communication goals in speaking is by getting the audience in recognizing our intentions for achieving those goals. In communication, speaking is a mayor skill Hussain (2017). Compensation strategies is a part of communicative competence which has many advantages. Another strategy in communication competence is pragmatic strategy. However, pragmatic strategy has own tendencies in its communication goal such as hate speech Ononye and Nwachukwu (2019). It is different from communication goal in compensation strategy. In communicative competence, compensation strategies aim to guide learners to be successful in mastering foreign language and confidence in communication. Choosing certain strategies is also crucial to build the students' skill. There are some important factors possible influencing the choice of compensation strategies, especially in speaking activities. Related to the findings, competent speakers tended to be interested in communicating and taking much willingness in the real communication. The students determine that their strategies bring better influence to their learning process Gani et al. (2015). In a line with this, Kumari (2014) in Hussain (2017) said that a variety of function based activities and tasks can be used to develop speaking skills which are given such as: dialogue, role-play, opinion/ideas, problems (group work), problems (group work), visual comprehension, dreams or ambitions, rhymes and tongue twisters, and songs. Those speaking activities will be able to build EFL speaking skill upgrading. This phenomenon also found in this study that competent speakers tend to use compensation strategies much more than poor speakers. It means that the more strategies they use in speaking activities, the more upgrading speaking ability they will get. This can be seen in the result of observation sheet and questionnaire. In Observation, poor speakers only used two types of strategies, namely using gesture and getting help, while competent speakers used nearly all of the eight compensation strategies namely mime or gesture, switching or altering to the mother tongue, getting help, synonym, adjusting or approximating the message, and avoid or ejecting communication partially or totally. The result of questionnaire found that competent speakers used 3 strategies with the high level (selecting to the topic, adjusting the message, and using gesture). In the contrary, poor speakers only used two strategies with categorized as high level (selecting to the topic and coining word).
General mood has positively and significantly correlation with the choose of such strategies Ghenaati and Naeini (2019).
This also happens to competent and poor speakers in speaking activities. Competent speakers and poor speakers were different in using those strategies. For instance, speaker i mostly used switching to the mother tongue, selecting the topic and coining word while speaker c tended to use selecting the topic, adjusting and approximating the message, and using a circumlocution or synonym. A line with this, Karbalaei and &amp;negin (2014) found that Iranian EFL students tended to use various kinds of compensation strategies in communicating their intended meanings. However, in competent speakers, it was dominated by selecting the topic. The finding of this study also related to Rose and Nichole in Muslatif (2006) who found that, " everyone has her/his own strategies, but sometimes one strategy is dominated". In poor speakers, the writers found that there was also dominated strategy used namely selecting the topic. This tendency was the same with what happens in the competent speakers. The poor speakers also mostly used coining word as their strategies in speaking activities. Then, several strategies were in the medium level. Using synonym and avoiding communication partially or totally were in the low level. These strategies are never or almost never used. The phenomenon above also shows that each poor speaker used varieties compensation strategies. That my caused of every student different in using of every strategy even though in the same skill Brophy and Blumenfield in Humaeri (2003).
In addition, many experts also found that there are many reasons of why the uses of compensation strategies in speaking activities are different. This is also happened to the student when the writer did observation. Speaker e, for examples, figured out a number of aspects in journal speaking by using her finger nail. This is also happened to the speaker b that used a mother tongue of "berkorban" to avoid her communication gap. This phenomenon also happened to the speakers d who made the idea simpler or more precise to indicate the word she means.
Furthermore, the strategy such coining word used when the students lack of proper vocabulary. Very often, a learner has to make do with the language he or she has available to try and to carry on with the speech. In other words, he or she needs to coin words or expressions so as to maintain smooth conversations. This strategy actually exploits and extends his or her communicative competence (adapted in Dong and Fang (2010)). In this study, that phenomenon is the same with what speaker d had done in her speaking activities. The use of the compensation strategy such getting help is because whenever the students have a doubt, so they resorted to the other student to ask for the missing information. They also can apply the compensation strategy of Adjusting or approximating the message with aim to find a simple way of expressing opinion and remained quiet. Again, the student's insecurity prevented from participating in an oral task, and then they use avoiding communication partially or totally. When the students ran out of words, they sometimes employ physical actions. In other words, another expert states that" they exploit using mime or gesture to make them understood" Blazquez (2007). From the elaboration above (observation sheet as well as in questionnaire), the writers conclude that there is one strategy dominates other strategies in speaking activities, namely selecting the topic; Competent speakers much more used compensation strategies than poor speakers. This finding accordance with Gani et al. (2015) found that high performance speaking students had better balance in using all kinds of learning strategies (memory, cognitive, compensatory, metacognitive, affective, and social) for enhancing their speaking skills; the same could not be found with low performance speaking students Gani et al. (2015). Oxford (1990a) as cited in Gani et al. (2015) also state that the use of appropriate language learning strategies is a major contribution for development of communicative competence. The view point also correspond with O"malley and &amp;chamot (1990) who state that more effective (high speaking performance) students generally use a greater variety of strategies and use them in more ways to help them complete language tasks more successfully; conversely, less effective (low speaking performance). In addition, O"malley and &amp;chamot (1990) said that students not only have fewer strategies but also frequently use strategies that are inappropriate to the task at hand and which does not lead to successful task completion. In brief, the use of appropriate language learning strategies gave a greater contribution for the development of competence in speaking Gani et al. (2015). In the contrary, poor speakers use speaking strategies are less than competent speakers. This finding is in a line with what Gani et al. (2015) state for poor speaking performance that the students did not have consistency in using all kinds of learning strategies. Hanifa (2016) state found that the students of poor speakers relied more on compensation and social strategies compared to memory, cognitive, metacognitive, and affective strategies while learning speaking skill. Apart from that, some students seemed to use strategies that were not very effective to accomplish the language tasks. Therefore, their strategies only gave a little contribution toward their learning process Han-ifa (2016). Another finding about the use of strategy in learning is from Rasiban et al. (2019). Rasiban et al. (2019) found that the use of mimetic strategies in Japanese kanji learning was successfully enhanced the students' comprehension of lexically and semantically Rasiban et al. (2019). Therefore, the key word here is compensation strategies are useful as guidance for both competent and poor speakers to avoid communication gap in speaking activities.

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings (either in observation sheet as well as in questionnaire), the writers conclude six important points. The first, competent speakers (student a, b, c, d, and e) mostly used selecting the topic and adjusting or approximating the message and using mime or gesture in their speaking activities to avoid communication gap. The second, poor speakers (student f, g, h, i and j) also have the same tendencies as competent speaker that they mostly used selecting to the topic. In addition, they also mostly used coining word in their speaking activities to avoid communication gap. The third, the group tendencies of both competent and poor speakers are they mostly used selecting the topic to avoid communication gap in speaking activities. The fourth, competent speakers much more used compensation strategies than poor speakers. The fifth, compensation strategies are extremely useful as guidance for both competent and poor speakers to avid of communication gap in speaking activities.