THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SELF EFFICACY AND

SPEAKING PERFOMANCE OF THE FIFTH SEMESTER

STUDENTS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM THE

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SULTHAN THAHA

SAIFUDIN JAMBI

THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of One of Requirements to

Obtain Undergraduate (SI) Degree at English Education Program

Faculty of Education and Teacher Training

HADI HUSNAINI

TE.140988

ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING

THE STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

SULTHAN THAHA SAIFUDDIN JAMBI

2018

iv

DEDICATION

In the name of Allah SWT for HIS blessing and the merciful with deep thanks

and proud. I dedicate this thesis especially to :

My Family, My beloved father “Drs. H. Muhammad Salman, M.pd.i” , My

beloved mother “Aisyatul Jannah, S.Pd.i” and My beloved sister “Rafiqoh

Luthfiyah” who have been caring me with love and affection, teaching, and

educating me that Islam be part of my life.

My best friends “Diah Oktriana”, “Yusnida Tanjung” , “Jamilah” and “Izzatul

Ulya”who have been always giving me support. All of my classmates ENGLISH

EDUCATION OF D 2014. Your support and your kindness make me strong to

stand until now.

And for all I just want to say : Thank you very much.

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background of The Problem .......................................................................... ……. 1

B. Limitation of Research ....................................................................................... 3

C. Formulation of Problem .................................................................................... 3

D. The Significance of the Research .................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 5

B. Previous Studies ......................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH A. Research Design ............................................................................................................ 19

B. Research Subjects .............................................................................................. 19

C. Population and Sample .............................................................................................. 20

D. Data Collection Techniques ............................................................................... 20

E. Data Analysis Techniques .......................................................................................... 21

F. Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 23

xiii

LIST OF TABLE

Table 2.1 Speaking Rubric Indicators ............................................................ 14

Table 2.1 Self Efficacy Rubrics Indicators .................................................... 26

Table 3.1 Distribution of population .............................................................. 31

Table 3.2 Pearson Score Interpretation .......................................................... 34

Table 4.1 Statistical Scores of Speaking ........................................................ 36

Table 4.2 Statistical Scores of Self Efficacy .................................................. 37

Table 4.3 Normality Testing .......................................................................... 38

Table 4.4 Correlation between Self Efficacy and Speaking Performance ..... 39

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Speaking Performance ........................................................... 47

Appendix 2 Self Efficacy Questioner Sheet .............................................. 50

Appendix 3 Result of Speaking Scores and Self Efficacy ........................ 53

Appendix 4 Result of Speaking Performance ........................................... 55

Appendix 5 Result of Self Efficacy .......................................................... 55

Appendix 6 Descriptive Result ................................................................. 58

Appendix 7 Correlation Result ................................................................. 59

Appendix 8 Documentation ...................................................................... 60

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of The Study

Speaking is the one of skills that has to be learned by students. By

speaking, students can share ideas, interact each other and communicate in

English. Therefore, to enable the students to communicate in English fluently,

they should acquire language components such as grammar, vocabulary, and

pronunciation. Speaking is also considered as one of an effective and efficient

forms of communication compared with other forms of communication since

it is less formal and also simple in structure. Through speaking, the students

can express their ideas and thoughts. People also assume that one can

communicate if he can speak in that language well.

However, it is not easy to master English speaking skill, as well as

using it to communicate. Some people, especially students, find difficulties in

using English when they are trying to interact with others. They still look

hesitate to interact with their friends and their lecturer by using English. The

same issues can also be found in English language learning at non-speaking

English schools, where most learners often seem passive, and reluctant in

speaking English in the classroom (Hamouda, in Mastur 2007:2).

Therefore, students tend to have different drives to speak English.

There are encouragements and barriers that make them want to express their

ideas in English. Particularly in Indonesia where English is learned as a

foreign language, students do not commonly communicate with English in the

class. Some students may feel hesitant to speak English in front of others. On

the other hand, some others have their own encouregement, so they are willing

to speak English.

According to Hamouda (in Suganti, 2011:1) there are some factors

that may influence students to speak English namely anxiety, lack of interest,

incomprehensible input, shyness, lack of confidence, and low self belief on

their speaking capability. Students’ beliefs on their capability either positively

2

or negatively influence their willingness to speak. It is believed that self

efficacy can determine how people feel, think, and behave, as well as the

choices they make in specific situation. Self efficacy can be seen as the

confidence that people have in their ability to do the things that they try to do,

accomplish the goal and perform task competently. So, the beliefs which

students hold about their ability in speaking English can either encourage or

make them doubt to speak English in front of others in the classroom.

Moreover, one of the most important factors to control students in

speaking English is their belief and confidence on their capability, or the so

called self-efficacy as defined by Bandura (in Mastur 2007:2) which said that

self-efficacy is “the belief in one‟s capabilities to organize and execute the

course of action required to manage prospective situations”. In other words,

self-efficacy can be seen as the confidence that people have in their ability to

do the things they try to do, accomplish the goal and perform task competently

(Dornyei, in Mastur 2007:2). It is believed that self-efficacy can determine

what people think, behave, as well as the choices they make in particular

situation (Bandura in Mastur 2007:2). Thus, the belief that students have about

their ability to speak can either encourage or make them hesitate to speak

English in front of others in the classroom.

Based on pre observational research atthe fifth semester, the writer

found that there are some students who have interest in English class,

particularly speaking, but there are not many students who want to try to speak

in English, unless being forced by the lecturer. According to the lecturer, the

students‟ level of speaking skill is relatively average, but some of them seem

like afraid to express their idea in using English. When the researcher asked

some students on why they do not want to speak English in the classroom,

most of their answers are because they feel shy, they do not have the

confidence to speak, and there are even some students who said that they

cannot speak even before they tried. Therefore, it isclear that the students‟

level of self-efficacy seems to give lots effect on their speaking performance.

3

These are the reasons why the researcher wants to examine the correlation

between the students‟ self efficacy and their speaking performance.

Based on the explanation, the researcher interested to rise the study

with the title“THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SELF EFFICACY AND

SPEAKING PERFORMANCE OF THE FIFTH SEMESTER

STUDENTS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM UIN SULTHAN

THAHA SAIFUDDIN JAMBI.”

B. Limitation of the Problem

Avoiding of being too broad, the study was focused to observe the 5th

semester of English Departement students of UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin

Jambi, academic year 2018/2019. This study was focused on self efficacy and

speaking performance.

C. Formulation of the Problem

Based on the problem that the writer has explained briefly in the

background of the study, the writer chooses one problem to be researched and

the research question can be formulated as: “Is there significant correlationof

self-efficacyand andspeaking performance in the English language among the

5th semester of English Departement students of UIN Sulthan Thaha

Saifuddin Jambi, academic year 2018/2019?

D. Research Objectives and Significance

a. Research Objectives

This study was conducted in order to know the significant relationship

in self-efficacy and speaking performance in the English language among

the 5th semester of English Departement students of UIN Sulthan Thaha

Saifuddin Jambi, academic year 2018/2019.

4

b. Significance Research

a) Theoritical Benefits

By conducting this research, the researcher hopes that her research

will give valid information about the correlation between self-efficacy,

and performance in the English language among the 5th semester of

English Departement students of UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi,

academic year 2018/2019,. The researcher also hopes that the result of

this study will become input to English teachers and also English

learners for their teaching and learning.

b. Practical Benefits

a) The results of this study are expected to provide benefits for the

campus, especially UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi in the

self efficacy, speaking anxiety and speaking performance.

b) For the next researcher can be used as a reference in order to

further improve the quality of learning English, especially in

the self efficacy and speaking performance.

c) For students can be motivated to continue to excel in achieving

maximum learning results, particularly in terms of learning

English speaking performance.

5

6

CHAPTER II

REVIEW RELATED STUDIES

A. Definition of Speaking

Speaking is one of two productive skills in language teaching and

learning. It is defined as a two way processes between speaker and listener

(or listeners) and involves the productive skill of speaking and receptive

skill of understanding (Byrne, 1986, p.8, in Mazouzi, 2013, p.6).

Meanwhile, Nunan (2003, p.48) defined that speaking consists of

producing systematic verbal utterances to convey meaning. Moreover,

Bygate (1987, p.1, in Mazouzi, 2013, p.5) argued: “Speaking skill is the

ability in using oral language to explore ideas, intentions, thoughts and

feelings to other people as a way to make the message clearly delivered

and well understood by the hearer. Thus, speaking skill can be described

as the ability to communicate orally to other people with the aim is to

express their idea and feeling. It involves producing, receiving, and

processing information.

Speaking ability is an important aspect in learning a certain language,

as Theodore Huebner (in Mauludiyah, 2014:9) stated, “language is

essentially speech, and speech is basically communication by sounds”.

Hughes stated that “Speaking is not a discrete skill.” (Hughes, 2002 :

6). It cannotstand alone because some complex activities or sub-skills such

asvocabulary mastery, grammar competence, comprehension, inputs

oflanguage, phonology, and pronunciation are included. People speak

usingwords in which the words have meaning that the speakers have to

chooseand use them appropriately and of course this activity needs a skill

inchoosing and using the proper ones. Not only does the word order

thatpeople should notice, but the knowledge of how to pronounce words

isalso should be noticed in speaking. The reason of why

pronunciationshould be noticed because in speaking in foreign and second

7

language thewritten form and the pronunciation are far different. Those

sub-skills aremerely needed for successful of communication activities.

Speaking, according to Bygate in Nunan “Speaking is

typicallyreciprocal: interlocutors are normally all able to contribute

simultaneouslyto the discourse, and to respond immediately to the each

other‟scontributions.” (Nunan, 2000 : 7).

In language learning, speaking may essential for learners.

Horwitzstated that “speaking is the hallmark of second language

learning.Although some learners may have personal goals for language

learningthat do not include speaking, most educators accept speaking as

anessential goal of language learning and teaching.” (Horwitz, 2008 : 91).

Speaking becomesessential because it is the skill which people can see

directly that thelearners of a language are succeed. People may judge that

the successful oflanguage learning is when the learners can produce the

language they arelearning. Like what stated by McDough and Shaw “In

many contexts,speaking is a skill upon which person is judged „at face

value.‟ (Shaw, : 6).

In otherwords, people may sometimes make judgment about language

competencefrom speaking skill rather than any other skill. Moreover,

Farrel, statedthat “One of the main sources of evidence of language

competency is theability to speak the language you are learning.” (Farrel, :

8).Therefore, speaking canbe a direct judgment for language learners,

because speaking performancecan define the knowledge of the speakers in

using the language.

Woods stated that “Speaking effectively depends very much on

thespeakers‟ ability to interact with an interlocutor.” (Woods, 2005 : 41).

Another statement isstated by Linder that the “Communicative

competence is measuredaccording to the degree of fluency with the spoken

language, but it alsoincludes comprehension of that language in real-life

situation.” (Lander, 1977 : 5).Referringto the statements of Woods and

8

Lander, it can be concluded that the abilityof speaking is the ability to

speak and interact with the interlocutor withfluently and comprehensibly.

In classroom, speaking activities may happen to

practicecommunicative competence. Ur stated some characteristics of a

successfulspeaking activity such as bellow: (Penny, 1996 : 120).

a.) Learners talk a lot:As much as possible of the period of timeallotted to the

activity is in fact occupied by learner talk. This mayseems obvious, but

often most time is taken up with teacher talk orpauses.

b.) Participation is even:Classroom discussion is not dominated by amonitory

of talkative participants: all get chance to speak, andcontributions are

fairly evenly distributed.

c.) Motivation is high:Learners are eager to speak: because they areinterested

in the topic and have something new to say about it, orbecause they want

to contribute to achieving a task objective.

d.) Language is of an acceptable level:Learners express themselves

inutterances that are relevant, easily comprehensible to each other, andof

an acceptable level of language accuracy.

Speech, like written language, needs to be processed. People

speakwhat they have in their mind. There are some phases in speaking

processes:

a.) Conceptualization

Conceptualization is a phase of forming ideas (what is going

to bespoken) or principles in the mind.”22 During this phase the

intention isconceived. This phase is also known by the lexical level. In

lexicallevel is the stage of brain conveys meaning of a word. For the

exampleis when someone figures out “Goat”, there will be an

activation of thelexical module carrying all the features of goat.

b.) Words Level

The words level is the level of carrying the meaning ofwords

(Gleason, 1998 : 337) The meanings of the words are carried out based

9

on thesyntactic frame. It is the process of the mind to arrange meaning

fromthe smallest unit of the words into sentences.

c.) Articulation

This phase is the phase of turning the idea or concept into a

spoken word (Gleason, 1998 : 337). This phase of oral production

requires matching the syntacticalelements from the words level to the

sound that make up the language.

Speaking in target language needs skills since speakers need to know

the vocabularies and to know how to use the language, so the interlocutors

could understand the speakers. Some learners may be reluctant to speak.

Nation found some possibilities that make some learners have no

willingness to speak: (Nation, 1995 : 8).

a.) Inadequate Vocabulary

Vocabulary is needed since it is the thing that the speakers are

going to produce. It also that learning foreign language involves

learningthousands of words. The lack of vocabulary may cause

learners choose tomake no sounds in speaking class. To be functional,

students need arelatively small fund of words that they know well and

can useproductively in speaking. The teachers‟ role is facilitating

students tostudy and to provide them vocabularies to study.

b.) Inadequate Control of Grammar

Some learners who are not good in grammar may be reluctant

to speak. However, it is not absolutely that students with good

grammarknowledge are good is speaking. At least, students with good

grammarknowledge are more encouraged than who do not.

Understanding grammarcan be a way for learners to produce language.

c.) Lack of Fluency

Fluency is a skill aspect of language. It is a skill in which the

speaker of a language speaks easily. Guillot defined fluency as

“fluidity”,the absence of hesitation. (Guillot, 1999 : 11).

10

d.) Shyness

Some students may be shy to speak or unconfident to do it.

This may occur because of fear and negative experience. Students fear

to takerisks for making any mistakes and errors in speaking. Moreover,

what makes some students being anxiety is bad experience they have.

e.) Lack of Encouragement

It takes some courageous to start speaking in another

language.Some learners may be reluctant to speak because they feel

discourage tospeak in front of whole class. Another, they may feel

inconvenient tospeak because they feel that they do not have any

chances to speak. Theteachers should see and be aware of this. This

may make the students to bepassive in classroom activities. The

solution of this is the teacher shouldmake groups or pairs, so they are

motivated to speak.

B. The Importance of Speaking

Speaking ability is an important aspect in learning a certain language,

as Theodore Huebner (1960, p.4 in Mauludiyah, 2014, p.9) stated,

“language is essentially speech, and speech is basically communication by

sounds. Penny Ur (1996) argued that of the four skills (reading, writing,

speaking, and listening), speaking skill seems to be the most important one

since foreign language learners are most of all interested in becoming

actual speakers of the language. She also stated that people who know a

language are often referred to as „speakers‟ of that language (p.120).

C. The Nature of Speaking

Tarigan (1990, p.3-4 in Mauludiyah, 2014, p.14) defined that speaking

is a language skill that is developed in child life, which is produced by

listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned. Speaking is a

productive skill. It could not be separated from listening. When we speak

we produce the text that will be heard by other people and it should be

11

meaningful. In the nature of communication, we can find the speaker, the

listener, the message and the feedback.

The nature of speaking has been discussed by many researchers. Byrne

(1986, p.8) states that: “Oral communication is two-way process between

speaker and listener (or listeners) and involves the productive skill of

speaking and the receptive skill of understanding (or o listening with

understanding).

For him, speaker and listener participate in oral communication

process, and they use a productive skill which is speaking and receptive

skill which is listening, because speaking is an interactive process of

constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving and processing

information.

Speaking is also a multi-sensory activity because it involves

paralinguistic features such as eye-contact, facial expressions, body

language, tempo, pauses, voice quality changes, and pitch variation

(Thornbury, 2005, p.9) which affect conversational flow. It seems that

culture is a very essential part in how speaking is constructed which has

implications for how English speaking is taught and learned.

D. The Aspects of Speaking

Harris (1969, p.81 in Lestari, Nababan & Erni, 2013, p.3) stated that

speaking ability has four components which are generally recognized in

analyzing speaking. They are as follows:

a.) Pronunciation

includes the segmental features of vowels, consonants, stress, and

intonation patterns. The speaker is required to pronounce English word

correctly. (Harris, 1969 in Khalidah, Gultom & Harini, 2013, p.2).

b.) Grammar

Warriner in Noni (2002, p.15 in Lestari et al., 1993, p.3) said that

communication in speaking will run smoothly if grammar is used in

speaking. So grammar or structure is a very important aspect in

speaking ability.

12

c.) Fluency

Hornby (1974, p.330) defines fluency as the quality of being able

to speak smoothly and easily. It means that someone can speak without

any hesitation. Someone can speak fluently even though he makes

errors in pronunciation and grammar.

d.) Vocabulary

Vocabulary is range of words known or used by a person in trade,

profession, etc. (Hornby, 1974, p.979) If students have many

vocabularies, it will be easier for them to express their idea.

E. The Functions of Speaking

A few language experts have attempted to categorize the functions

of speaking in human communication. According to Brown and Yule, as

quoted by Richards (2008, p.21). The functions of speaking are classified

into three; they are talk as interaction, talk as transaction, and talk as

performance. Each of these speech activities is quite distinct in term of

form and function and requires different teaching approaches. Below are

the explanations of the speaking functions:

a.) Talk as Interaction

In interactional discourse, language is mainly used to

communicate in our daily life. It is an interactive act of verbal

expression which is done spontaneously by two or more person.

This is about how people try to convey their message to others.

According to Yule, (1989, in El Fattah, 2006, p.37-38) this type of

communication plays an important social role in oiling the wheels

of social intercourse. So, the primary intention in this function is

social relationship. According to Richards, (p.3) some of the skills

involved in using talk as interaction are:

(1) Opening and closing conversations

(2) Making small-talk

(3) Recounting personal incidents and experiences

13

(4) Turn-taking

(5) Interrupting

(6) Reacting to others

b.) Talk as Transaction

In transactional discourse, speaking is more focus on

delivering the message and making sure that the others understand

what we want to deliver, clearly and accurately. Language serving

this purpose is 'message' oriented rather than 'listener' oriented

(Nunan, 1989, p.27). In this kind of spoken language, students and

teachers usually focus on meaning and talking in the way of their

understanding. For example, classroom group discussions,

teachers‟ classroom instructions, and problem solving activities.

Richard (p.4) also mentioned some of the skills involved in using

talk as transactions, they are:

(1) Explaining a need or intention

(2) Describing something

(3) Asking questions

(4) Confirming information

(5) Justifying an opinion

(6) Making suggestions

(7) Clarifying understanding

(8) Making comparisons

c.) Talk as Performance

In this case, speaking activities are more focus on monolog

rather than dialog. Speaking as performance can be seen at

speeches, public talks, retelling stories, and so on. Examples of

talk as performance are making a presentation, performing class

debate, and giving a lecture.

14

In conclusion, there are three functions of speaking that are categorized by

the expert that include talk as interaction, talk as transaction, and talk as

performance. Those are kinds of talks we usually use in daily speaking with its

different functions.Testing speaking skill seems to be challenging because the oral

poduction test has a high subjectivity. (Heaton, 2000 : 12). It tends to be

subjective becauseit tested orally and assessing spoken language is so difficult

because in thistest we have to discriminate whether or not the speakers have the

ability tospeak the target language. For this reason, in testing speaking, to be wise

isa must to make the test valid and reliable. Moreover, the evaluation ofspeaking

needs some guidance or scales of to what extend people have theability to speak

in foreign language. It needs guidance to let the testershave a standard that have to

be required by the test takers.

According to Harris, there are some components that are scored

inspeaking test. The components that have to be scored are

pronunciation,grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. (Harris, 2009 :

84). Then, the criteria ofspeaking assessment are adapted from Harris‟s speaking

rubrics. Thecomponents of the score are illustrated such as bellow.

Table 2. 1 Speaking Rubrics Indicators

No Criteria Scale Description

1 Pronounciation 5 Has little foreign pronounciation

4 Clear enough to be understood

3 The pronounciation leads to

misunderstanding

2 Very hard to understand. Must

frequently be asked to repeat

1 Unclear ronounciation

2 Grammar 5 Makes only little error on grammar

and word order

4 Occasionally makes errors and

15

unclear meaning

3 Makes frequent errors of grammar

and word order

2 Grammar and word-order errors make

comprehension difficult

1 Makes some errors in grammar which

leads to unclear meaning

3 Vocabulary 5 Use of vocabulary and idioms like

native speakers

4 Sometimes uses inappropriate terms

3 Frequently uses wrong words /

Inadequate vocabulary

2 Misuse of words and very limited

vocabulary

1 Vocabulary limitations so extreme

and imossible to make conversation

4 Fluency 5 No hesitation in speaking like the

native speakers

4 Speed of speech seems to be slighty

affected by language problems

3 Speed and fluency are rather strongly

affected by language problems

2 Usually hesitant: often forced into

silence

1 Speech is so halting (stop moving)

and impossible to make conversation

5 Comprehension 5 Appears to understand everything

without difficulty

16

4 Understand nearly everything at

normal speed, although occasional

reetition may be necessary

3 Understanding with slower than

normal speed with repetition

2 Has great difficulty following what is

said and needs frequent repetition

1 Can not be said to understand even

simple conversational English

(Harris, 2000 : 123)

F. Types of Classroom Speaking Performance

Brown (2001, p. 271) described that there are six types of speaking,

they are:

1. Imitative

Teacher asks students to drill word in which the students simply

repeat a phrase or structure (e.g., "Excuse me." or "Can you help me?")

for clarity and accuracy. (Brown, p. 271).

2. Intensive

This is the students‟ speaking performance with the aim to practice

some phonological and grammatical aspects of language. It usually

places students doing the task in pairs (group work), for example,

reading aloud that includes reading paragraph, reading dialogue with

partner in turn, reading information from chart, etc. (Brown, 2004,

p.141).

3. Responsive

assessment tasks include interaction and test comprehension but at

the somewhat limited level of very short conversations, standard

greetings and small talk, simple requests and comments, and the like.

The stimulus is almost always a spoken prompt (in order to preserve

17

authenticity), with perhaps only one or two follow up questions or

retorts. (Brown, 2001, p. 273).

4. Transactional (dialogue)

It carried out for the purpose of conveying or exchanging specific

information. It is an extended form of responsive language. Such

conversation could readily be part of group work activity as well, such

as information-gathering interviews, role plays, or debates. (Brown,

2001, p.273; Brown, 2004, p.172).

5. Interpersonal (dialogue)

It is carried out more for the purpose of maintaining social

relationships than for the transmission of facts and information. The

forms of interpersonal speaking performance are interview, role play,

discussions, conversations and games. (Brown, 2001, p. 274).

6. Extensive (monologue)

Teacher gives students extended monologues in the form of oral

reports, summaries, storytelling and short speeches (Brown, 2004,

p.142).

Based on the theory above, it can be concluded that there are some

points that should be considered in assessing speaking. The students

need to know at least the pronunciation, vocabularies, and language

functions that they are going to use. When the students have been

ready and prepared for the activity, they can use the language

appropriately.

G. The Goals of Speaking

As stated by (Azizfar etal, 2014) mastering of oral aspects of

language implies that students understand what others say and try to

express what they want in a language class. Speaking skill is essential for

each person who wants to learn second or foreign languages. Feelings of

tension and apprehension are usually existed among second or foreign

language learners. Different learners use different strategies when they

18

speak a foreign language. Such feelings in the learners may hold them

back from the ultimate goal. Some speak in public with no tenses, but

some wait for a time to gain necessary knowledge, and some never speak a

foreign language (Azizfar et al., 2014).

Language competence is equal to language use and language

acquisition is both affected by and affects the conditions of its use

(Goodwin, 1995). Language learning researchers have been trying to

assess learners‟ language proficiency by studying their ability to use the

language for social interactions in real world contexts. Thus, the learners

purpose for studying language is to get the ability to use the language in a

communicative way not only to get grammatical competence (Cekaite,

2007; Hall, 1995; Hellermann, 2006; Kanagy, 1999; Kramsch, 1986;

Markee, 2000; Young, 1999, 2000, 2002; Young & Miller, 2004). To be

able to speak a language requires not only the ability to process

information and language but also the knowledge of language items

(Harmer, 2001).

H. Self-efficacy

The concept of self-efficacy firstly is theory of Social Cognitive

byBandura. Bandura published his seminar work “Selfefficacy: Toward a

unifying Theory of Behavioral Change” on 1977. He wrote that self-

efficacy proved to be an accurate predictor of performance in the en-active

mode of treatment although subjects engaged in no overt behavior

(1977:211).Bandura further proposed that a person‟s attitude, abilities, and

cognitive skills comprise what is known as the selfesteem, too(Tilfarlioglu

& Cinkara, 2009). Then a large number of studies in education have been

done to observe its implication particularly in second/foreign language

learning where affective factors may influence its process and the

performance.

19

Bandura defines self-efficacy as “the belief in one‟s capabilities to

organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective

situations,” or stated another way, self-efficacy refers to individual‟s

belief in his or her ability to succeed in a particular situation(Bandura,

1995, p.2 in Jennifer Dodds, 2011, p.19).

Moreover, self-efficacy is the belief that people have in own abilities,

specifically ability to meet the challenges ahead and complete a task

successfully (Akhtar, 2008). General self-efficacy refers to overall belief

in ability to succeed, but there are many more specific forms of self-

efficacy as well (e.g., academic, parenting, sports).

Then, self efficacy is the belief in one‟s own ability to successfully

accomplish something. It is a theory by itself, as well as being a construct

of social cognitive theory. Self-Efficacy tells us that people generally was

only attempt things fail (Bandura, 1994: 15).

According to Bandura (1994: 44-45) there are several indicators of

self-efficacy; they are: Confident to complete a specific task, Confident to

motivate own self to take the necessary steps in completing the task, The

individual are able to increase motivation in own self to choose and do an

action which is needed to finish the task.

Self efficacy concerns primarily cognitive judgments of one‟s own

capabilities based on mastery criteria (Bang & Clark, 2001), whereas self

concept emerges as a more complex construct incorporating both cognitive

and affective responses toward the self. Academic self concept and self

efficacy are first compared from the following three conceptual

perspectives: construct composition, nature of comparison, and generality

and structure. Construct composition is that a person‟s perceptions of

her/himself are formed through his/her experience with his/her

environment. Self concept may be described as organized, multifaceted,

hierarchical, stable, developmental, evaluative and differentiable. The

cognitive facet of self concept consists of awareness, understandings of the

self and its attributes. Shavelson (1976) believes that the individual not

20

only develops a description of her/himself in a particular situation but that

s/he also forms evaluations of her/himself in these situations. The affective

facet of self concept incorporates one‟s feelings of self worth. Self efficacy

deals with cognitively perceived capability of the self. Whether or not one

has the capability to carry out a course of the action that leads to the

successful accomplishment of goals is the focus of efficacy.

It is also a confident that we are able to try hard, persistent and

diligent. The existence of a hardly effort from the individual to finish the

task that is dicided by using all of thing. Confident that we survive to face

obstacles and difficulties The individual are able to hold out in getting

difficulty and obstacle which is emerged and be able to get up from the

failure. Confident that we are able to do the task which has general range

or specific.The individual are sure that in doing the task, they can finish

even that it is general or specific.

Self-efficacy consists of two words; self and efficacy. Self is the

identity of a person while efficacy is defined as the power to produce an

effect (Zulkosky, 2009 in Nurjannah, 2015, p.7). He also mentioned that

the synonym of efficacy includes effectiveness, efficaciousness, and

productiveness. Basically, Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as the

people‟s beliefs in their capabilities to produce desired effects by their

own actions. He also defined that self-efficacy as a person's confidence in

its capacity to organize and implement actions to achieve the goals set, and

try to assess the level and strength in all activities and contexts. He further

explained that self-efficacy is “what people think, believe and feel affects

how they behave” (1986, p.5 in Dodds, 2011, p.19). Maddux (2000)

mentioned that self-efficacy is the belief that says “I can perform the

behavior that produces the outcome” (p.4). Self-efficacy beliefs lead to a

person's ability to organize and implement a series of actions to achieve

specified outcomes(Bandura, 1997 in Nurjannah, 2015, p.7)

Baron & Byrne (2000) suggested that self-efficacy is an individual‟s

judgment of his or her own ability or competence to perform a task,

21

achieve a goal and produce something. Besides that, Feist & Feist (2002)

also stated that self-efficacy is the belief of individuals that they have the

ability to hold control over their own work in a particular situation(In

Astrid, 2009, p.1)

Based on the explanations above, it can be concluded that self-efficacy

is an individual‟s belief and confidence in his or her own capabilities to

perform or complete tasks and difficulties they face in order to overcome

obstacles and achieve the expected goals. It is not expected to measure

one's actual capabilities but, rather, the confidence that an individual holds

in regards to particular abilities in spite of the fact that, as we will find in

the following sections, self-efficacy beliefs can directly influence

individual's efforts and activities and therefore, serve as an excellent

predictor of one's future performance and ability (Bandura, 1997; Pajares,

1997, in Dodds, p.19)

Self efficacy is commonly defined as the belief in one's capabilities to

achieve a goal or an outcome. Students with a strong sense of efficacy are more

likely to challenge themselves with difficult tasks and be intrinsically motivated.

These students will put forth a high degree of effort in order to meet their

commitments, and attribute failure to things which are in their control, rather than

blaming external factors. Self-efficacious students also recover quickly from

22

setbacks, and ultimately are likely to achieve their personal goals. Students with

low self-efficacy, on the other hand, believe they cannot be successful and thus

are less likely to make a concerted, extended effort and may consider challenging

tasks as threats that are to be avoided. Thus, students with poor self-efficacy have

low aspirations which may result in disappointing academic performances

becoming part of a self-fulfilling feedback cycle.

Self-efficacy refers to perceived capabilities for learning or performing

behaviors at designated levels. Self-efficacy can influence choice of activities,

effort, persistence, and achievement. People acquire information about their self-

efficacy for a given activity from their actual performances, vicarious experiences,

forms of persuasion, and physiological symptoms. In educational settings,

students have goals and varying levels of self-efficacy for learning. As they

engage in a task they acquire skills and evaluate their learning progress.

Perceptions of progress sustain self-efficacy and motivation and promote learning.

Students' self-efficacy is influenced by such contextual variables as goals, social

models, rewards, social comparisons, and forms of feedback. Self-efficacy has

been shown to predict student motivation and achievement across a variety of

content areas. Teachers' self-efficacy affects classroom planning, instruction, and

student interactions. Future research should address assessment issues,

longitudinal changes in self-efficacy, and the role of self-efficacy during self-

regulation. (Schunc,2001)

In general, self-efficacy can be divided into two categories; high self-

efficacy and low self-efficacy. In performing a particular task, people with high

self-efficacy tend to be more involved in the situation, while those who have low

self-efficacy prefer to avoid and stay away from the task.

Individuals who have high self-efficacy tend to be more motivated to do a

particular task, even a difficult one. They do not view the task as a threat they

should avoid. They are not afraid to fail in performing the task. Instead, they

increase their efforts to prevent a failure that might occur. Those who fail in their

work, they usually regain their self-efficacy as quickly after experiencing failures

(Bandura, 1997, in Astrid, 2009, p.30-31).

23

On the contrary, people who have low self-efficacy will try to avoid

difficult tasks. Such individuals have low commitment in achieving the goals they

set. When they faced difficult tasks, they are busy thinking about the

shortcomings they have, the distractions they face, and all the results that can be

detrimental to them. They do not increase their efforts and give up very easily.

They are too slow in correcting their own mistake and regaining their self-efficacy

when facing a failure(Bandura, 1997, in Astrid, p.31).

According to Bandura (1997 in Nurjannah, p.9), there are four big factors

that influence someone‟s self-efficacy.

a) Mastery Experiences

Individuals develop the beliefs of their capability through the results

from their previous performances which may be interpreted in either

direction. The students who are successful of their tasks in the past will

be more confident in doing their activity in the future. On the contrary,

negative interpretation about previous tasks can undermine their personal

efficacy. Mastery experiences, thus, serve as an excellent predictor of

someone‟s future success (Chen, 2007, p.21).

b) Vicarious Experiences

Individual‟s self-efficacy can also be influenced by vicarious

experiences provided by social models or friends whom they assume

having the similarity of competence and intelligence (BandurainChen,

p.21). Seeing people comparable to them capable of performing the same

tasks will make them think that they, too, have the ability to finish the

tasks. Information gained from comparing with their friends thus gives

reference to individuals‟ own capabilities. Therefore, peer modeling is

another big factor that affects students‟ personal efficacy.

c) Social Persuasion

People also develop efficacy beliefs through social persuasion or

verbal judgment from others about their capabilities in doing something.

Social persuasion, may offer additional ways of increasing someone‟s

belief that they can succeed. Bandura (1997, in Chen, p.21) said that

24

although social persuasion itself alone may not create huge increases in

efficacy perception, “it is easier to sustain a sense of efficacy, especially

when struggling with difficulties, if significant others express faith in

one‟s capabilities than if they convey doubts” (p.101).

d) Physiological and Emotional States

Physiological and emotional states influence self-efficacy in any

opportunities as well. For example when we learn to associate poor

performance or perceived failure and success with pleasant feeling states,

positive or negative mood, and other factors like fatigue, anxiety, etc

(Maddux, 2000 in Nurjannah, p.10).

According Bandura (Ghufron and Rinaswita, 2010: 80), self-efficacy on

every individuals will differ from one individual to another based on three

dimensions. Here are the three dimensions.

a) Dimension level (magnitude / level)

This dimension relates to the degree of difficulty with the

problemencountered by an individual. In this case whether the individual

is capablesolve the problem or not. If the individual is faced withtasks

25

arranged according to a certain degree of difficulty, then self-

efficacyindividuals may be confined to easy, medium, or taskseven

covering the most difficult tasks, according to the limits of abilitywhich is

recommended to meet the demands of the required behavior oneach level.

This dimension affects the behavioral electionwill be tried or avoided. If

an individual feels able to perform a given task then he will try to solve it

so vice versa.

b) Dimensions of strength (strength)

This dimension relates to the degree of strength or weakness of belief or

individual expectations of his or her abilities. The belief that less of his

ability will have an easy impact shaken by unsupportive experiences.

Instead, high confidence encourages individuals to survive in their efforts.

Although it may be found less supportive experience. This dimension

usually related directly to the level dimension, that is, the higher the level

the difficulty of the task, the weaker the perceived confidence to solve it.

c) Dimensions of Generalization (generality)

This dimension relates to the area of individual belief behavior will be

its ability to achieve a success. Individuals can feel confident or unsure of

his or her ability. Is it limited to a certain activities and situations or on a

series of activities and situations vary.

In this study, self-efficacy is seen as one's self-belief of his

ability to perform the necessary actions to solve a problem that involves

thinking ability critically. Measurements of self-efficacy in this study

focused on three dimension that is magnitude / level dimension, dimension

strength, and dimension of generality which is then downgraded to

indicator-indicator.

According to Bandura (1994), Perceived self-efficacy is defined

as people's ideas about their strengths to produce selected levels of

working. Self-efficacy beliefs decide on the way people experience,

believe, encourage themselves and perform. Such beliefs create these

effects through four main stages. They are cognitive, motivational,

26

emotional and selection stages. A well-built sense of efficacy increases

human achievement and personal success in many ways. People who

strongly believe in their competence view difficult tasks as challenges and

they are not afraid of performing them. They set themselves special

objectives and are committed to them. They make hard efforts in the face

of breakdown. They rapidly get well their feeling of efficacy after break

downs. They believe that failure is because of inadequate effort or poor

knowledge which is achievable. Such an effective idea causes personal

success, decreases anxiety and reduces depression. According to Pajares

(2000), beliefs that students create, generate and keep are very important

factors in their achievement or breakdown in school. So it is concluded

that why students succeed or not succeed largely depends or students self

efficacy belief.

a.) Gender Differences

The connection between gender and self-efficacy has been concentrated in

studies. In general, researchers state that boys and men are likely to be more

positive than girls and women in educational fields which are linked to

mathematics, science, and technology (Meece, 1991; Pajares & Miller, 1994;

Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996), regardless of the truth that success

differences in these fields are largely reducing (Eisenberg, Martin & Fabes,

1996).

Boys and girls also are likely to agree to a contrary position while reacting

to self-efficacy tools. Researchers have examined that boys are likely to be

more self admiring in their reactions but girls are more humble (Wigfield et

al., 1996). Some researchers have illustrated that gender differences in group,

individuality, and educational variables may really be a role of gender

adoption rather than of gender (Eisenberg et al., 1996; Hackett, 1985; Harter,

Waters, & Whitesell, 1997; Matsui, 1994). According to Eccles's (1987),

cultural beliefs like students' gender role beliefs to some extent cause

differences in lessons and occupation choice and in self-belief ideas and

perceived significance of responsibilities and behaviors.

27

b.) Self Efficacy and its Dimension

According to Zimmerman (2000) and Bandura (1997) considered people

motivation mainly in name of outcome expectations before he developed self-

efficacy as a main factor in social cognitive theory. Through the therapy of

phobic humans, he found individual differences in their perceived potential to

use mastery modeling methods outside the remedial situation in spite of the

fact that all individuals were able to communicate effectively with the aim of

their fear without unpleasant results at the end of the treatment. However, they

established a strong outcome hope that right methods would keep them safe

from unpleasant results. Bandura called this individual distinction self-

efficacy. Even if self-efficacy and outcome expectations were equally

assumed to influence motivation, he considered a greater role for self- efficacy

because the types of outcomes people anticipate depend largely on their

judgments of how well they will be able to perform in given situations.

According to Zimmerman (2000), Self-efficacy determines focus on

performance competence instead of individual traits. Subjects evaluate their

abilities to accomplish certain task requirements, rather than who they are

individually or what ideas they have about themselves most of the time. Self-

efficacy values are multidimensional in type and they are different according

to the function.

c.) Sources of Self Efficacy

According to Bandura (1994), the most efficient way of generating a

powerful sense of efficacy is through accomplishment of experiences in an

excellent way. Successes establish a strong belief in one's personal efficacy.

Failures weaken it, especially when failures happen before a feeling of

efficacy is strongly formed. The second way of getting self-beliefs of efficacy

is through the indirect practices offered by social models. When they see

people similar to themselves succeed by making effort, they believe that they

also have too much to do similar activities to succeed. By the same token,

observing others' fail despite high effort lowers observers' judgments of their

own efficacy and undermines their efforts. The impact of modeling on

28

perceived self efficacy is strongly influenced by perceived similarity to the

models.

Moreover, social assurance is a third way that causes people to believe that

they have what they need to be successful. People who are encouraged orally

that they have the qualities which are necessary for controlling given

activities, are highly possible to make greater effort and maintain it than if

they feel apprehensive about their personal imperfection when problems

occur. The fourth way of reforming self-beliefs of efficacy is to decrease

people's stress and help them adjust their negative emotional tendency.

Last, the way people interpret their mental and physical responses is very

important. People with high feeling of efficacy view their situation of

emotional excitement as a stimulating mean of performance, but people with a

low sense of efficacy see their excitement as an obstruction.

d.) Achievements Goals of Self- Efficacy

According to (Meece et al., 1988), there are two kinds of different goals,

mastery and performance goals. According to (He, 2004), learners with

mastery goals are concerned with acquiring efficiency and growing their

abilities. However, for performance oriented learners the aim of learning is to

indicate their abilities to others and they try to get an approval from their

teachers or parents. Also, academic self-efficacy works such as a major aspect

that adjusts learners to prefer dissimilar aims. So, self-efficacy appears to be

an originator of achievement goal implementations (Elliot & Church, 1997).

As He (2004) refers, learners with a great self-belief in their talent to

complete a learning task and forming their major aim of their learning to

develop self-value tend to implement a mastery aim. Learners with low

confidence in their academic ability tend to select an avoidance goal. This

means that when a task is impossible to be carried out, learners prefer to move

away from their learning in order to stay away from being considered as

unintelligent and unqualified by others. In contrast, when learners with high

academic self-efficacy meet a difficult task try hard to succeed because they

29

tend to prove their special ability over other people. Through effectively

performances they keep their able-beliefs.

e.) Self Efficacy Theoretical Framework

Self-efficacy theory derived from social-cognitive learning theory,

introduced by Bandura (1997).The foundation of social cognitive theory is an

observation of human activity or sense of agency in which people are actively

occupied in their own progress and can create things by their effort and

movements. It is pointed out individuals possess self-beliefs that make it

possible for them to assess a special control over their ideas, emotions, and

performances that what people believe, consider, and experience influence the

way they act (Bandura, 1986).

According to Bandura (1986), Among all the beliefs that influence

individual performance, and at the heart of social cognitive theory, are self-

efficacy beliefs, which are people's findings of their powers to sort out and

accomplish what is needed to get selected kinds of actions.

Moreover, according to Norman and Conner (1995), in this theory

individual behaviors are determined according to situation-consequence,

performance-consequence and noticed self-efficacy.

Also, situation-consequence anticipations include ideas about which

outcomes people will face without intervening their performance.

Performance-consequence is the idea that for a special action will or will not

be a special consequence. Self-efficacy anticipation is a thought whether a

special is controlled by individuals. A persons thought whether he or she able

to accomplish a special learning task would determine self- efficacy

anticipation. Context consequence anticipation are considered to control

individual performances through their effects on performance-consequence

anticipations. Action or performance-consequence anticipations influence

performance through their result on aims and self-efficacy anticipations.

Association of situation-consequence anticipation with performance-

consequence anticipation would form special goals and plans to carry out a

30

special task. Actions will be successful through decreasing a known venture

conducts plans to do such actions.

Self-efficacy anticipations have an explicit effect on actions and an

implicit result on goals and plans. A person succeed is influence by relations

one‟s performances, individual features and contextual circumstances.

Learners get knowledge to assess their self-efficacy from their real behaviors,

their practices, the influences they get from others, and their mental and

emotional feedback. Self-efficacy ideas affect task preference, attempt,

patience, purposefulness, flexibility and accomplishment (Bandura, 1997;

Schunk, 1995).

f.) Speaking Self- Efficacy

According to Assakereh and Deghannejat (2015) there is positive relations

between speaking skills achievement and satisfaction with speaking classes

and speaking skills self efficacy beliefs. Speaking self-efficacy belief is a

stronger predicator of Iranian EFL students speaking skills achievement

(p.353).

As Asakereh and Dehghannejad (2015) argued, learners with higher

speaking skills self-efficacy tend to perform better in speaking skills.

Moreover, the extent of effort, insistence and flexibility are organized on the

basis of self-efficacy beliefs. And self efficacy-beliefs can changes an

individual thinking prototypes and mental feedbacks. Learners with high self-

efficacy tend to be more confident and are more positive to accomplish

speaking activities with special complexity levels. Those with a high self

efficacy belief tend to do complex assignments, whereas those with low self-

efficacy may consider tasks more difficult than they actually are. This kind of

belief may cause a feeling of anxiety and hopelessness (Pajares, 1996).

Also, there are a lot of studies that examined relationship between EFL

learners self- efficacy and their language skills proficiency. Some studies

(Kargar & Zamanian, 2014; Naseri & Zaferanieh, 2012; Shang, 2011)

discovered a positive relationship between self- efficacy beliefs and reading

comprehension skills success.

31

According to Liu (2013), a lot of studies suggested that the use of

strategies is largely associated to self-efficacy ideas. Magogwe and Oliver

(2007) illustrated that there was a considerable relationship between the

learners strategy used and their self efficacy feelings Wang and Li (2010)

argued that readers with advanced levels of self-efficacy applied more reading

strategies than readers who had little self-efficacy. Liu (2013) found that

whereas many investigations have been carried out on self efficacy in

association with writing, reading and listening skills, investigation on self

efficacy of speaking capability in foreign language learning has been ignored.

Moreover, he also examined the result of a site “English Bar” on college

students speaking self- efficacy. He argued that students who often speak

English at the Bar tend to have a high level of self-efficacy in comparison to

their classmates who hardly ever met the “Bar”. Liu considered some positive

aspects of the Bar.

First, students were allowed to choose either their co-workers or subjects

to decrease their stress. Second, students without an appropriate level of

proficiency in speaking skills were motivated by the overseas instructors and

their co-workers. Third students self-efficacy was developed as they

monitored similar others who were proficient speakers. At the end, students

try harder as they found out that they were making development to talk about

themselves in English. According to Asakereh and Dehghannezhad (2015),

few studies have investigated the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs

and speaking proficiency. In addition, Saeidi and Ebrahimi Farshchi (2012)

found out, communication strategies help the learners become more positive

about their capabilities to handle circumstances which are fearful to them

because of their language imperfections. Teachers are able to guide the

students to promote an idea that they have enough ability to become

successful in their speaking objectives regardless of their language weakness

through teaching communication strategies. Teaching communicative

strategies in content-based courses is an innovative idea to get the student

32

familiar with the strategies that help them overcome their language

deficiencies (p.231).

Table 2.2. Self Efficacy Rubrics Indicators

No Criteria Description

1 Magnitude Being optimistic in doing lessons and tasks

Interested in lessons and tasks

Learn according to a set schedule

On time in collecting the task

Never failed in doing task

2 Strength Commitment in completing tasks that are given

Persistence in completing tasks

Have a positive purpose in doing things

Thinking positive in doing the tasks

33

Believing in solving problem

3 Generality Make life experience a path to success

Likes to find new situations

Responding to different situations with good

and positive thinking

Trying to solve the problem

Judging other positively

The rubric above is used to reduce the subjectivity of the test. In case,

tojudge the skill that the students have is not easy to do because judgments

aresometimes subjective. For the example is discriminating the skill of

grammar;once it can be judged good, but the criteria of “good” itself is an opinion

or a pointof view. Therefore, to assess the performance of speaking will be better

if theassessor is two or more assessors.

I. Review Related Studies

Many studies have been carried out on this concept of self efficacy in

the academic settings. The first research of Mastur (2007) with the titleThe

Relationship between Students‟ Self-Efficacy and Their Speaking

Abilityof MTsS Al-Manar students. In this regard, this study aims to find

out whether there is a relationship between self-efficacy and speaking

achievement in English language courses of the eight grade students of

MTsS Al-Manar. The participants of this study were 32 students from

eight grade class in academic year 2015-2016. Within a correlational

research model, self-efficacy questionnaire (SEQ) was applied to the

participants. The collectedquantitative data were analyzed by Statistical

34

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 20.0 program. The Pearson

product-moment correlation coefficient were used to analyze the data.The

finding of this research showed that the result of r calculation for students‟

self-efficacy and their speaking performance score is .536. Based on the

table of interpretation of r value, the result of r calculated (.536) is

between 0.400 and 0.600. This value shows that there is a positive

correlation between the two variables. From the significance (2 tailed), the

writer get the score .002. It means Sig<0.05 so the null hypothesis (H0) is

rejected. The result explained that there is significant relationship between

self-efficacy and speaking ability of the eight grade students of MTsS Al-

Manar.

The second study isfrom Restimai Suganti. R (2011) with the title the

correlation between self efficacy and speaking skill of the ninth grade

students at Junior High School 10 Padang. This study aims to see whether

or not there is a positive correlation between self-efficacy andstudent

speaking skills. The population of this study was the 9th grade students of

SMP Negeri 10 Padang in the school year2014/2015. The total students of

all are 275 students. In determining the sample, researchers useSlovin's

formula by selecting 73 students as trial students and 73 students as

research students. In this research sample is class IX with a total of 73

students. In collecting data, researchersusing a questionnaire to see

students' self-efficacy and speaking tests to measure speaking

skillsstudent. In analyzing data, researchers used Product Moment

correlation. After analyzing the data,researchers found the value of r-count

was 0.40 with a significant level of 0.05. The result of r-table is 0.23with a

significant level of 0.05). This means that r-count is higher than r-table

(0.40> 0.23), then the hypothesisin this study accepted. Based on this

study it can be concluded that self-efficacy affects student speaking skills.

Students who have high self-efficacy also have speaking skillshigh. Thus,

it is expected that teachers can support students to be able to improve their

self-efficacy.

35

The third research is from Ni Putu Yanti Cahya Sari (2012) with the

title The Correlation Between Students Self –Efficacy and their

Performance in Speaking Skill. This study is generally attempted to find

the correlation between students‟ self-efficacy and their performance in

speaking skill at the second grade of SMPN 18 Mataram in academic year

2017/2018 .The method of the research applied is correlation research

(explanatory design). The population of this research consist of three

clasess of SMPN 18 Mataram which number 59 population and the sample

of the study is 52 students. The sample technique used in this research is

simple random sampling technique by using slovin formula. Based on the

result of the study, there was correlation between self-efficacy and their

performance in speaking skill in which r-test (0,80) > r-table (0,268), its

means the value of r-test was higher than r-table. From the research data it

was found out that there was significant correlation between students‟ self-

efficacy and their performance in speaking skill. This was proved by the t-

test score (7,957) was higher than t-table (1,675) the degree of freedom

(df) was used 50. It can be concluded that self-efficacy and their

performance in speaking skill has significant correlation at the second

grade students of SMPN 18 Mataram. Finally, the researcher suggests that

should be more creative to make students self-efficacy increased in using

media or strategy that students do not feel bored in the class.

The fourth is study of Sundari with the title The effect of speaking self

efficacy and gender in speaking activitie. The present study tries to find

out the effect of speaking self-efficacy and gender in speaking activities

particularly in English as second/foreign language situation, using

questionnaire from Bandura‟s Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales.

The Samples of this study were 23 male and 27 female college-students

from speaking classes. ANOVA and T-test helped by SPSS 15.0 for

windows were employed to investigate speaking self-efficacy, gender and

speaking activities. The result showed that the level of speaking self-

efficacy both male and female students is moderate. They can moderately

36

perform speaking activities but they think them quite though and difficult.

Besides, Sig. for gender scores lower than .05 (.013 < .05), gender gave

significant effect towards speaking activities. Yet, not only speaking self-

efficacy partially (Sig .162 > .05) but also its simultaneous interaction with

gender (Sig .0677 > .05) did not affect significantly towards speaking

activities.

The similarity of the last research to the present is in the focus of

research or variable, they are self efficacy and speaking. The different

between those researchs is in the subject. The last research took the

students of junior high school, while this research will take the university

students as the subject.

37

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH

A. Place and Time of The Research

The research of this study will be conducted at the fifth semester

students of English Education Program of Islamic University

SulthanThahaSaifuddin Jambi which is located at Jl. Jambi Ma Bulian KM. 16

Simpang Sungai Duren Kab. Ma.Jambi.

B. Research Design

The studyconducted through quantitative method and the design

correlational study. This study tends to be a study of correlation

becauseinvestigates the correlation between two variables. As stated by

Sangadji thatcorrelational research is a type of research with certain

characteristic of theproblems of the relationship or correlation at least two

variables (Sangadji, 2010 : 71). Variable isthe object of the research or what is

being noticed in a research (Arikunto, 1996 : 99).

In statistical science, the correlation between two variables is known as

bivariate correlation, while the correlation between more than twovariables is

known as multivariate correlation. Since the correlation studysearches for

whether or not there is a correlation between two variables ormore, the

correlation between two variables can be a positive correlation andnegative

correlation (Sudijono, 2006 : 167).A study has a positive correlation when two

variables(or more) move in tandem. It means if the X variable decreases, the

Yvariable also decreases and vice versa. However, a study has a

negativecorrelation when one variable decreases, while the others increase and

viceversa.

The researcher would like to find the relationship between independent

and dependent variable namely investigating the correlation between students’

self efficacy and their speaking performance. The researcher wants to know

whether the two variables are related or whether one can predict another.

38

C. Population and Sample

1. Population

Population is a place of generalization that consists of subject and

object of the research with certain quality and characteristic that

arestandardized by the researcher in order to learn from them and then to

draw aconclusion from them (Sangadji, 2010 : 26).The elements of

population can be individually,family, a social group, school, class,

organization, etc. In other words,population is an organization of the

elements (Sudjana, 1989 : 84).It can be concluded thatpopulation is the

place where information are collected by the researcher. Itcan be human,

animate, product, or even document to be learned and to draw a conclusion

from them.

In this research, the researcher will include the English Education

Program students of State Islamic University Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin

Jambi at fifth semester students as population. The fifth semester students

consists five classes namely VA, VB, VC, VD, and VE. VA consists of 25

students, VB consists of 26, VC consists of 30 students, VD consists of 24

students and VE consists of 27. A number of fifth semester students are

131 students. The distribution of population is shown as the following

table.

Table 3.1 Distribution of Population

No. Classes Number of Students

1. VA 25

2. VB 26

3. VC 30

4. VD 24

5. VE 27

Total 131

(source: The interview from the Students)

39

2. Sample

Depending on term of time, ability, and fund, the researcher took

sample of the populations which have been decided. Sample, according to

Arikunto is a part of the population that becomes a representative for all

population. In this research, the sample of the population is taken through

purposive sampling. The researcher takes 6-7students from each class. So, the

sample of this research consists of 32 students.

D. Techniques of Collecting the Data

1. Speaking Test

In this research, the researcher used speaking test to investigate the

students speaking performance. Students are asked to come in front the

class one by one, then the researcher ask the students to tell about their

story, their vision and mission.

2. Questionnaire

In order to collect quantitative data, the writer used a self-efficacy

questionnaire, modified from self-efficacy questionnaire made by Alavi,

S., Sadighi, F., & Samani, S. (2004) and a self confidence questionnaire

(SCQ) which was developed by Akin (2007) and used in some studies

(Gurler, 2013; Ucar and Duy, 2013). The questionnaire has twenty

questions for the learners to indicate their beliefs regarding their speaking

abilities, which may be divided into four subskills: pronunciation, fluency,

grammar, and vocabulary.

A five Likert scale was used to map and interpret students‟ response.

The interpretation was as follows:

1- SD = Strongly Disagree= denotes very low self-efficacy (under 1.55)

2- D = Disagree = denotes low self-efficacy (1.56 – 2.55)

3- M = Moderate = denotes moderate self-efficacy (2.56 - 3.55)

4- A = Agree = denotes high self-efficacy (3.56 - 4.55)

5- SA = Strongly Agree = denotes very high self-efficacy (above 4.55)

40

E. Techniques of Data Analysis

In analyzing the data, the researcher uses correlation product moment

which developed by Carl Pearson because the researcher wants to find out

theinfluence which is related to correlational study. “Correlation

productmoment is used to show whether there is a correlation or relationship

betweenX variable and Y variable.” (Sugiono, 2010:67). The symbol of the

correlation product moment is“r”. (Sudijono, 1989 : 27). Data operation

technique is done through the steps below:

1. Finding the number of correlation using formula:

( )( )

√ ( ) ( ) )

N `= Number of participant

X = Students Listening Comprehension

Y = Students speaking scores

∑X = The sum scores of listening comprehension

∑Y = The sum scores of speaking

∑X2 = The sum of the squared scores of listening comprehension

∑Y2 = The sum of the squared scores of speaking

∑XY = The sum of multiplied score between X and Y

This formula is used in finding index correlation “r” product moment

between X variable and Y variable (rxy).

2. Finding significance between two variable:

√

√

r = Value of correlation coeficient

n = number of participants

41

3. Interpret the index scores of “r” correlation:

However, to make it easy and effective in calculating the data, the writer used

SPSS 20 in processing the data to get the correlation between the two variables.

Corelation of product momment (rxy) usually used the interpretation such as

bellow: (Ridwan, 2011 : 81).

Table 3.2 Pearson Correlation Interpretation

The Score of

(rxy)

Interpretation

0.00 – 0.19 There is a correlation between X and Y,but the

correlation is very weak or littleso it is ignored or it is

considered nocorrelation in this rating.

0.20 - 0.39 There is a correlation between X and Y,but it is weak or

little.

0.40 – 0.69 There is a correlation between X and Y.The value is

medium.

0.70 – 0.89 There is high correlation between X and Y

0.90 – 1.00 There is a very high correlation betweenX and Y.

4. Hypotheses

A Hypothesis in the research is a basic assumption of how the

result of theresearch will be. It is a prediction of a phenomenon. Moreover,

in formulatinghypothesis, the researcher has to ensure that the hypothesis

is real or based onfact. There are two kinds of hypotheses: (Sangadji, 2010

: 92).

a.) Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): There is a correlation among

,self-efficacy, speaking anxiety and speaking performance in the

English language among the 5th semester of English Departement

students of UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi, academic year

2018/2019.

42

b.) Null Hypothesis (HO): There is no correlation among ,self-

efficacy, speaking anxiety and speaking performance in the

English language among the 5th semester of English

Departement students of UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi,

academic year 2018/2019.

If ro is the same as or higher than rt, the Ha is accepted. It means that

thereis a correlation between self efficacy and speaking performance. If ro is

lower than rt, the Ha is rejected. It means that there is no correlation

between self efficacy mastery and speaking performance .

43

F. Schedule of the research

No

Activities

MONTH

April May July August September Oct Nov

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1 Thesis proposal

Arrangement

X X X

2 Making the

proposal

X X X

3 Revise from the

advisor

X X X X X X

4 The proposal

seminar

X

5 Licensing the

research

X X

6 Research X X X

7 Data analysis X X

8 Thesis writing X X

9 Thesis

consulting

X X X

10 The thesis

examination

X

44

CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

A. Finding

1. Data Description

As mentioned before in the previous chapter, the researcher conducted the

research by using questionnaire in fifth semester in order to obtain the

students’ selfefficacy scores. This respondent consists of 32 students. For the

English speaking score, the researcher obtained it from the test.

Finally, the writer analyzed the data to know the correlation between

students’ self-efficacy and their speaking ability by using the formula of

Pearson Product Moment in SPSS 20 Program.

a) Students’ Speaking & Self-efficacy Scores

From the scores that were collected, the researcher needed to know the

statistical score of the data including the mean, median, mode, maximum

score, minimum score, and standards deviation of the scores (see appendix

for the details). To find out those data the researcher used SPSS 20. The

finding will be presented as follows:

Table 4.1 Statistical Scores of Speaking

Valid

N

Missing

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. Deviation

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

32

0

77.00

80.00

80

7.280

52.999

60

86

45

From the calculation of SPSS above, it can be seen that the average score of

speaking is 77.00. The median score of speaking is 80. The mode or the score that

appears the most is 80. The highest score of speaking test is 85 while the lowest

score is 60. The standard deviation is 7.280 with variance 52.999.

Table 4.2 Statistical Scores of Self-efficacy

Valid

N

Missing

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. Deviation

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

32

0

78.09

77.50

72

7.472

55.830

62

98

According to table 4.2, the average score of the students‟ self-efficacy

questionnaire is 78,09. The median score is 77,50. The mode is 72. The highest

score of self-efficacy is 98 while the lowest score is 62. The standard deviation is

7,472 with variance 55,830.

b) Normality Testing

In quantitative research, it is important to know the normality of the

data. The writer used Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test to find out whether the

data distribution is normal or not by using SPSS Program.

46

Table 4.3 Normality Testing

Speaking score Self efficacy

N

Normal Parameters a,b

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Most Extreme Absolute

Differences Positive

Negative

Test Statistic

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

32

77,0313

7,28004

,221

,137

-,221

1,249

,088

32

78,0938

7,47192

,113

,113

-,077

,640

,808

a.) A test distribution normal

As the table above shows, the result of distribution test is normal. The table

of one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test was obtained

probabilitynumber/Asymp. Sig.(2-tailed). This percentage will be compared

with 0,05 (α=5%) to take the decision based on:

a) If Sig. > 0.05, it means the data distribution is normal.

b) If Sig. < 0.05, it means the data distribution is not normal.

The table shows speaking score probability is 0,088 > 0,05 and

selfefficacy score probability is 0,808 > 0,05 which means that the data

distribution is normal.

B. Data Interpretation

1) The Correlation

Result As mentioned before in the previous chapter, the writer used SPSS

program to analyze the data. The result as below:

47

Table 4.4 Correlation between Self-efficacy and Speaking

Performance

Speaking score Self efficacy

Pearson

Correlation

Speaking score Sig. (2- tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Self Efficacy Sig. (2- tailed)

N

1

32

,536**

,002

32

,536**

,002

32

1

32

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The table above shows that the correlation coefficient is 0,536, which

indicates that there is a positive correlation between the two variables. Then the

writer looked at correlation interpretation table by Ridwan (see table 3.1 in the

previous chapter) to describe the strength of the correlation. The table showed that

the highest correlation is 0.90 – 1.00 and the lowest correlation is 0.00 – 0.19. The

score between the highest and the lowest is called the moderate correlation.

Moderate correlation can be week correlation and medium correlation.

From the table, it canbe stated that there is a medium correlation (0,400-0,600)

between X and Y variables which means that there is positive relationship

between students‟ selfefficacy and speaking ability. Whereas, the probability of

significance; sig. (2-tailed) = 0,002, will be used to know which hypothesis will

be accepted or rejected (it will be explained in the next part)

2) Hypothesis Testing

To answer the research problem, the writer has to measure whether the

hypothesis is rejected or not. The writer formulated the hypothesis. There are two

kinds of hypotheses: (Sangadji, 2010 : 92).

48

a. Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): There is a correlation between self-

efficacy and speaking performance in the English language among the

5th semester of English Departement students of UIN Sulthan Thaha

Saifuddin Jambi, academic year 2018/2019.

b. Null Hypothesis (HO): There is no correlation between self-efficacy

and speaking performance in the English language

The statistical hypothesis stated:

1. H0 accepted if ρ> 0.05 (α=5%), which means Ha rejected.

2. H0 rejected if ρ< 0.05 (α=5%), which means Ha accepted

Based on Table 4.4 above, the writer got N.Sig = 0,002 <

0,05 which means Ho is rejected. If H0 is rejected then the

alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted. In other word, it can be

concluded that there is significant relationship between students‟

self-efficacy and their speaking ability. Therefore,it can be

interpreted that if the level of self-efficacy increases, speaking

grades of the students are expected to increase too.

C. Discussion

As the researcher has mentioned in the first chapter, this study purposed to

answer the research problem; whether there is any significant relationship

between students‟ self-efficacy and their speaking performance of the 5th

semester of English Departement students of UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi,

academic year 2018/2019. In learning English as a foreign language, it is

important for the students to practice or speak new words they know. By

practicing and using the vocabularies in speaking the target language, the learners

will memorize the words and learn how to use them in various contexts. It also

helps them to speak English accurately and fluently. However, when they have

problems in speaking such as lack of self-confidence and bravery to speak, it can

influence them in mastering English speaking.

49

In this study, the writer had collected the data needed to prove the

hypothesis. The data was collected using three instruments. The first is the

speaking self-efficacy questionnaire given to all students in the 5th semester of

English Departement students of UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi, academic

year 2018/2019as the participants in this research. They were asked to fill the

items of statement on the questionnaire, which was used to investigate their level

of self-efficacy. The second instrument is the students‟ speaking score which was

gained from the test document. Then the third is observation which showed what

students did.

The observation showed that most students felt difficult to speak in class.

They felt anxiety and hesitate to produce wirds. Students have little foreign

pronounciation, so that sound their produce was unclear. Then, students seldom

have clear enough to be understood what they friends said. The students’

pronounciation leads to misunderstanding. After that, the students’ pronunciation

is very hard to understand. It must frequently be asked to repeat. Besides, students

occasionally make errors and unclear meaning. The Students’ grammar and word-

order errors make comprehension difficult. Then, Students frequently use wrong

words / Inadequate vocabulary, so it made speaking usually hesitant: often forced

into silence. The conclusion, students can not be said to understand even simple

conversational English.

This discussion derived from the analysis of the findings. The analysis has

been accomplished in order to answer the research problem. From the analysis,

the researcher would like to discuss the result of the test. First, the writer found

that the average level of the students‟ self-efficacy was 78 which according to the

Five Likert Scale in chapter 3 (78÷20=3,9) can be described as high, while the

average score of their speaking test was 77, which was good. Moreover, the

researcher also got the correlation result between self-efficacy and speaking

ability or performance of the students which was r=536. Based on Ridwan

interpretation, the strength of correlation is moderate or enough correlation. In

addition, the writer got p value =.002 where the significance < 0.5 which means

that H0 rejected and Ha accepted.

50

Thus, as the writer has explained before, the students‟ self-efficacy can

give positive impact on their speaking test and performance, as proved by the

findings above. In line with this, Bandura explained that “what people think,

believe and feel affects how they behave” (1986, p.5 in Dodds, 2011, p.19).

Thus,it is true that students‟ pyschological factor such as self-efficacy or

selfconfidence will influence how they behave and perform. This study also

proved to be relevant with previous studies about selfefficacy related to

performance context that had been described in chapter 2. As the study conducted

by Gurler (2015, p.14) found out, students with high selfefficacy or confidence

always show better performance than those who have lower self-efficacy. The

study also indicated that there was significant correlation between the two

variables within the level of .01. Another study carried by Anggraini, Setiyadi &

Sudirman (2014a) also reached the same conclusion. The result showed that the

coefficient correlation of two variables; self-efficacy and students‟ engagement in

English speaking class; was 0.384 and it was significant where r-value is (0.384)

> r-table (0.254)

Based on the description above, the writer can conclude that there was

significant relationship between students‟ self-efficacy and their ability or

performance in speaking class. What students‟ feel or think about themselves will

influence their own actions and behaviour. Therefore, self-efficacy serves as an

excellent predictor of students‟ future performance and ability (Bandura, 1997;

Pajares, 1997, in Dodds, p.19).

51

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusions

Based on the research findings and data analysis in the previous chapter, it

can be concluded that there is positive significant relationship (the correlation

coefficient is 0,536, which indicates that there is a positive correlation between

the two variables.) between selfefficacy and speaking performance of the English

class of 5th semester of English Departement students of UIN Sulthan Thaha

Saifuddin Jambi, academic year 2018/2019. All in all, the students’ level of self-

efficacy can influence their speaking performance in the English language class.

B. Suggestions

Based on the result of the study, the writer proposed some suggestions

concerning the research findings as follows:

a.) Lecturer

Besides teaching the material about speaking, the lecturer also should

pay more attention on some psychological factors that can influence

students‟ speaking performance and daily behaviour, such as self-efficacy.

b.) Students

In order to have a good skill and performance in speaking, the students

should have high self-efficacy and believe that they have the ability to

complete their speaking tasks. By having high self-efficacy, students can

increase their ability and bravery in speaking. They will not worry about

the mistakes and a possible failure in the future.

51

52

REFERENCES

Anggraini, D (2014). Correlation between Students’ Academic Self-efficacy

and Their Engagement in Speaking English Class at SMA Sugar

Group Lampung Tengah. (Published thesis).Retrieved from

http://digilib.unila.ac.id/3694/14/CHAPTER%201.pdf

Anwar, D. I. A. (2010). Hubungan antara Self-efficacy dengan Kecemasan

Berbicara di Depan Umum. (Published thesis). Universitas Sumatera

Utara, Indonesia.

Anyadubalu, C. (2010). Self-efficacy, anxiety, and performance in the

English language among middle-school students in English language

program in Satri Si Suriyothai, Bangkok. International Journal of

Social Science, 5(3), 193-198. Retrieved from

http://lib.dtc.ac.th/article/dtc/ 0035.pdf

Awaliyah, N. (2015). The Correlation Between Students’ Self-efficacy and

Achievement at English Education Department of Universitas

Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta. (Published Thesis). Retrieved from

http://thesis.umy.ac.id/datapublik/t52743.pdf

Bandura, A. (1994). Self‐efficacy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge

university press.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. New York: Longman

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assesment:Principles and Classroom

Practice. San Francisco: Pearson Education.

Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Byrne, D. (1986). Teaching oral English: Longman handbooks for English

teacher.

53

Chen, H. Y. (2007). The relationship between EFL learners' self-efficacy

beliefs and English performance. Retrieved from

http://www.ijllalw.org/ finalversion6437.pdf

Hamouda, A. (2012). An exploration of causes of Saudi students' reluctance

to participate in the English language classroom. International

Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 1-34. Retrieved from

http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijele/article/view/2652

, 21, 61-71. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu

/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.485.2420&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Hornby, A. S., Cowie, A. P., & Lewis, J. W. (1974). Oxford advanced

learner's dictionary of current English (Vol. 4). London: Oxford

University Press.

Khalidah, U. (2013). A study on the speaking ability of second year students

of SMA N 2 SIAK HULU. (Published thesis). Retrieved from

http://repository.unri.ac.id/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/2162/J

URNAL%20Ummi%20Khalidah.pdf?sequence=1

Lestari, M. (2013). A Study on the Speaking Ability of the Second Year

Students of MTS Darul Hikmah Pekanbaru. (Published thesis).

Retrieved from

http://repository.unri.ac.id/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/3923/

7.MELA%20LESTARI.pdf?sequence=1

Mazouzi, M. S. (2014). Analysis of Some Factors Affecting Learners‟ Oral

Performance. Retrieved from http://dspace.univ-biskra.dz:8080/jspui

/bitstream/123456789/4772/1/PEOPLE1.pdf

Murad Sani, A., & Zain, Z. (2011). Relating Adolescents' Second Language

Reading Attitudes, Self Efficacy for Reading, and Reading Ability in

a Non-Supportive ESL Setting. Reading Matrix: An International

Online Journal,11(3).

54

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle

and Heinle.

Rahimi, A., & Abedini, A. (2009). The interface between EFL learners' self-

efficacy concerning listening comprehension and listening

proficiency.Novitas-Royal, 3(1), 14-28. Retrieved from

http://pegem.net /dosyalar/dokuman/124476-20110815121542-2.pdf

Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking. Cambridge

University Press.

Sadighi, F., Alavi, S., & Samani, S. Journal of Social Sciences &Humanities

of Shiraz University.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and Academic Motivation. Educational

psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231.

47

Appendix 1

Speaking Performance

Assesment Sheet

1. Researcher introduces himself to students and explain about his research.

2. Researcher asks the students to come in front of class one by one.

3. Researcher gave them a speaking performance about a story of themself ,

their vision and mission.

a. Students explain about themself (name, address, hobby)

b. Students explain about their vision and mission (what they do right

now and what will they do for their future)

c. Students close their story with the wise words , eg. There is not a

successfull without praying to Allah.

4. The researcher gave mark based on the Harris theory. The highest mark is

5 and the lowest is 1.

No Criteria Scale Description

1 Pronounciation 5 Has little foreign pronounciation

4 Clear enough to be understood

3 The pronounciation leads to

misunderstanding

2 Very hard to understand. Must

frequently be asked to repeat

1 Unclear ronounciation

2 Grammar 5 Makes only little error on grammar and

word order

4 Occasionally makes errors and unclear

meaning

3 Makes frequent errors of grammar and

48

word order

2 Grammar and word-order errors make

comprehension difficult

1 Makes some errors in grammar which

leads to unclear meaning

3 Vocabulary 5 Use of vocabulary and idioms like

native speakers

4 Sometimes uses inappropriate terms

3 Frequently uses wrong words /

Inadequate vocabulary

2 Misuse of words and very limited

vocabulary

1 Vocabulary limitations so extreme and

imossible to make conversation

4 Fluency 5 No hesitation in speaking like the

native speakers

4 Speed of speech seems to be slighty

affected by language problems

3 Speed and fluency are rather strongly

affected by language problems

2 Usually hesitant: often forced into

silence

1 Speech is so halting (stop moving) and

impossible to make conversation

5 Comprehension 5 Appears to understand everything

without difficulty

4 Understand nearly everything at normal

speed, although occasional reetition

may be necessary

3 Understanding with slower than normal

49

speed with repetition

2 Has great difficulty following what is

said and needs frequent repetition

1 Can not be said to understand even

simple conversational English

(Harris, 2008)

50

Appendix 2

Self Efficacy Questionaire sheet

Nama :

Kelas :

Petunjuk pengisian angket :

1. Bacalah setiap pernyataan dengan baik dan teliti.

2. Jawablah setiap pernyataan dengan sejujur-jujurnya sesuai dengan

pendapat anda sendiri.

3. Berilah tanda ( √ ) pada salah satu pilihan yang menurut anda sesuai

dengan diri anda.

Keterangan :

SS = Sangat Setuju TS = Tidak Setuju

S = Setuju STJ = Sangat Tidak Setuju

N = Netral/ragu-ragu

no Pernyataan SS S N TS STS

1

When I say a simple

sentence, I can pronounce

almost all words correctly

2

When I say a simple

sentence, I can recite all

words smoothly

3

I am sure that I will get good

grades in the speaking

category.

4 I mastered almost all the

vocabulary given by the

51

lecture

5 I can say a sentence in the

correct grammar

6 I am not afraid to make

mistakes in speaking English.

7

I'm sure I can have

conversations in front of my

classmates.

8 I can recite every vocabulary

given by the teacher easily.

9

When I say a simple

sentence, I can distinguish

between verbs, nouns,

adjectives, etc.

10

When the lecturer uses

everyday conversation

sentences to ask questions, I

can answer them using

English easily.

11

When the teacher instructs

students to randomly make a

sentence, I am the first person

to do it

12

In my opinion, saying a

sentence in English is not

difficult..

13 I feel confident in my ability

to learn English.

14 In my opinion, memorizing

vocabulary is difficult, but

52

I'm sure I can do it.

15

I am not confident when I

pronounce vocabulary in

English

16

I feel confident when

answering questions from the

lecturer in class

17

With the shortcomings that I

have, I am pessimistic that I

can do assignments from

lecturers

18

Compared to other students, I

am a weak student in English,

especially speaking

(speaking).

19

I am not afraid to ask the

teacher if there is something I

do not understand or know

20 However I try, I'm not sure I

can speak English

(Bandura, 2011)

53

Appendix 3

Result of Speaking scores and Self Eficacy

Participants Speaking Scores

(X)

Self-efficacy

Scores (Y)

Student 1 76 90

Student 2 80 98

Student 3 84 77

Student 4 84 77

Student 5 72 76

Student 6 60 72

Student 7 80 72

Student 8 84 90

Student 9 80 78

Student 10 80 81

Student 11 80 81

Student 12 72 71

Student 13 64 70

Student 14 72 85

Student 15 76 72

Student 16 84 86

54

Student 17 76 78

Student 18 60 62

Student 19 64 67

Student 20 84 76

Student 21 80 79

Student 22 84 82

Student 23 76 68

Student 24 80 79

Student 25 76 73

Student 26 80 75

Student 27 84 81

Student 28 72 79

Student 29 80 77

Student 30 76 82

Student 31 80 76

Student 32 84 89

55

Appendix 4

Result of speaking performance

No pronunciation grammar vocabulary fluency comprehension total skor

1 3 5 4 4 3 19 76

2 3 5 4 5 3 20 80

3 4 4 4 4 5 21 84

4 4 4 4 4 5 21 84

5 3 4 4 4 3 18 72

6 4 3 2 3 3 15 60

7 3 5 4 5 3 20 80

8 3 4 4 5 5 21 84

9 3 5 4 5 3 20 80

10 3 5 4 5 3 20 80

11 3 5 4 5 3 20 80

12 2 3 4 4 5 18 72

13 2 3 3 4 4 16 64

14 4 4 4 3 3 18 72

15 3 4 4 4 4 19 76

16 4 4 4 5 4 21 84

17 4 4 4 4 3 19 76

18 3 2 3 3 4 15 60

19 3 3 3 3 4 16 64

20 4 5 4 4 4 21 84

21 3 5 4 5 3 20 80

22 5 3 4 5 4 21 84

23 3 4 4 4 4 19 76

24 3 5 4 5 3 20 80

25 3 4 4 4 4 19 76

26 3 5 4 5 3 20 80

56

27 4 4 4 5 4 21 84

28 3 3 4 4 4 18 72

29 3 5 4 5 3 20 80

30 3 4 4 4 4 19 76

31 3 5 4 5 3 20 80

32 4 4 4 4 5 21 84

Appendix 5

Result of Self Efficacy

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 total

1 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 90

2 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 98

3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 77

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 77

5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 77

6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 72

7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 72

8 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 90

9 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 78

10 3 4 4 2 4 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 81

11 2 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 81

12 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 71

13 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 71

14 4 3 3 2 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 85

15 4 3 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 2 3 3 3 3 2 72

16 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 86

17 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 78

18 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 62

19 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 67

20 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 3 3 76

21 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 79

57

22 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 3 2 82

23 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 68

24 3 2 2 3 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 2 5 2 5 5 79

25 3 4 4 2 4 3 4 5 2 4 2 2 2 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 73

26 2 2 2 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 75

27 4 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 81

28 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 79

29 4 3 3 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 77

30 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 82

31 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 76

32 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 89

58

Appendix 6

Descriptive Result

Valid

N

Missing

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. Deviation

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

32

0

77.00

80.00

80

7.280

52.999

60

86

Valid

N

Missing

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. Deviation

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

32

0

78.09

77.50

72

7.472

55.830

62

98

59

Appendix 7

Correlation Result

Speaking score Self efficacy

N

Normal Parameters a,b

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Most Extreme Absolute

Differences Positive

Negative

Test Statistic

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

32

77,0313

7,28004

,221

,137

-,221

1,249

,088

32

78,0938

7,47192

,113

,113

-,077

,640

,808

Speaking score Self efficacy

Pearson

Correlation

Speaking score Sig. (2- tailed)

N

Pearson

Correlation

Self Efficacy Sig. (2- tailed)

N

1

32

,536**

,002

32

,536**

,002

32

1

32