i

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ SELF-

EFFICACY TOWARDS THEIR SPEAKING SKILLS AT THE

ELEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF MAN SALATIGA IN

THE ACADEMIC YEAR OF 2018/2019

A GRADUATING PAPER

Submitted to the Board of Examiners as a partial fulfillment of the

requirements for Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd.)

By:

SITI FATIMAH

NIM. 11314115

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

STATE INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES (IAIN)

SALATIGA

2018

v

MOTTO

Believe in yourself, and the rest will fall into place. Have faith in your own abilities, work hard, and there is

nothing you cannot accomplish.

~ Brad Henry ~

للاه ان ا يغهي ر له تى بقهوم مه ا يغهي روا حه هنفسهم مه با

Verily never will Allah change the condition of people until they change it

themselves.

~ (Holy Quran, 13:11) ~

vi

DEDICATION

This graduating paper is dedicated to:

1. My beloved father (Mr. Wartono) and my beloved mother (Mrs. Sarti) who

always support me materially and morally. Thank you for your endless love

and prayer, thank you for raising me up to more than I can be.

2. My beloved second parents of Aisyiyah Orphanage, Mr. Sulaiman and Mrs.

Pursini. Thank you for taking care of me since I was in senior high school

until I finished my study in university.

3. My only sibling, Suparti and her children Muhammad Fadillah and Nazila

Akmalia Nisa who always cherish me.

4. My beloved best friends of “Tiga Srikandi” Nur Anti Futikha and Uky

Arzuqoh who always be there supporting, listening, and amusing me.

5. My beloved sister from another mother and father, Adik Irmasari, who

always reminds me to take care of everything I should to.

6. My beloved best friend since Elementary School, Tri Astutik, who always

listens always understands, who never gets tired of reminding me to finish

this graduating paper.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Assalamu’alaikum Wr. Wb.

Al-hamd lillaahi rabb al-alamin, all praises be to Allah SWT the Most

Gracious and Most Merciful who always blesses and helps the researcher, so the

researcher can finish this graduating paper as one of the requirements for Sarjana

Pendidikan (S.Pd.) in English Education Department of Teacher training and

Education Faculty of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga.

Peace and salutation may always be given to Prophet Muhammad SAW.

who has guided as from the darkness to the brightness. However, this graduating

paper will not be finished without support, advices, help, and encouragement from

several people and institution. Hence, the researcher would like to express special

gratitude to:

1. Mr. Dr. H. Rahmat Hariyadi, M.Pd. as the Rector of State Institute for

Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga

2. Mr. Suwardi, M.Pd. as the Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

3. Mrs. Noor Malihah, Ph.D. as the Head of English Education Department

and also as the counsellor who has supported, directed, and given advices,

suggestions, and recommendations for this graduating paper from the

beginning until the end.

4. All lecturers, especially the lecturers of English and Education Department

of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga

ix

ABSTRACT

Fatimah, Siti. 2018. The Correlation between Students’ Self-Efficacy towards Their

Speaking Skills at the Eleventh Grade Students of MAN Salatiga in the

Academic Year of 2018/2019. A graduating Paper. Teacher Training

and Education Faculty. English Education Department. State Institute

for Islamic Studies Salatiga. Counsellor: Noor Malihah, Ph. D.

This research aims to find out the correlation and to define the significance

of the correlation between students’ self-efficacy and their speaking skills at the

eleventh grade students of MAN Salatiga in the academic year of 2018/2019. The

participants of this research are 64 students.

The research methodology used in this research is quantitative research

design specifically correlational research method. To collect the data, the researcher

used questionnaire to find out self-efficacy scores and test to find out speaking

scores. The data were analysed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS) 16.0 program. The researcher used Pearson product moment correlation

coefficient to find out the correlation result.

The result of this research shows that there is a positive significant

correlation between the students’ self-efficacy and their speaking skills. The

correlation result is r count = 0.547 and significance value is ρ = 0.000. The r table

for N = 65 is 0.244. Therefore, r count is more than r table (0.547 > 0.244) which means

there is a correlation between the two variables. The correlation is considered as

moderate correlation because r count (0.547) is between 0.400 and 0.599. In addition,

the significance value is less than 0.05 (0.000 < 0.05) which indicates that the

correlation is significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected and the

alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted. The result of this research explained that

there is a positive significant correlation between students’ self-efficacy towards

their speaking skills at the eleventh grade students of MAN Salatiga in the academic

year of 2018/2019.

Key Words: Self-Efficacy and Speaking.

x

TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE ............................................................................................................... i

DECLARATION ............................................................................................. ii

ATTENTIVE COUNSELOR’S NOTE ........................................................... iii

STATEMENT OF SERTIFICATION ............................................................. iv

MOTTO ........................................................................................................... v

DEDICATION ................................................................................................. vi

ACKNWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................. vii

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. x

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................... xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................. xv

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Research ................................................................ 1

B. Problems of the Research ..................................................................... 4

C. Objectives of the Research ................................................................... 5

D. Significances of the Research .............................................................. 5

E. Definition of Key Terms ...................................................................... 7

F. Outline of Graduating Paper ................................................................ 8

xi

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................... 10

A. Review of Previous Researches ........................................................... 10

B. Theoretical Framework ........................................................................ 12

1. Speaking ......................................................................................... 12

a. Definition of Speaking ............................................................. 12

b. Basic Types of Speaking .......................................................... 13

c. Assessing Speaking .................................................................. 15

2. The 2013 Curriculum ..................................................................... 18

a. Definition of the 2013 Curriculum ........................................... 18

b. Characteristics of the 2013 Curriculum ................................... 20

c. The Purpose of the 2013 Curriculum ....................................... 21

3. Student-Centered Learning ............................................................ 21

a. Definition of Student-Centered Learning................................. 21

b. Characteristics of Student-Centered Learning ......................... 23

c. Implementation of Student-Centered Learning ........................ 25

4. Self-Efficacy .................................................................................. 27

a. Definition of Self-Efficacy ....................................................... 27

b. Sources of Self-Efficacy .......................................................... 27

c. Self-Efficacy Processes ............................................................ 30

d. Self-Efficacy and Educational Development ........................... 32

C. Hypothesis of the Research .................................................................. 34

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................... 35

xii

A. Research Design ................................................................................... 35

B. Setting of the Research......................................................................... 35

C. Population and Sample ......................................................................... 36

1. Population ...................................................................................... 36

2. Sample ............................................................................................ 36

D. Variables of the Research..................................................................... 38

E. Research Instruments ........................................................................... 39

1. Questionnaire ................................................................................. 39

2. Test ................................................................................................. 41

F. Test of Research Instruments ............................................................... 43

1. Validity ........................................................................................... 44

2. Reliability ....................................................................................... 45

G. Method of Data Collection ................................................................... 46

H. Technique of Data analysis .................................................................. 47

1. Normality Testing .......................................................................... 47

2. Correlation Analysis....................................................................... 48

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ..................... 51

A. Data Description................................................................................... 51

1. Students’ Self-Efficacy and Speaking Skill Scores ....................... 51

a. Interpretation of Self-Efficacy Data ......................................... 54

b. Interpretation of Speaking Data ............................................... 57

2. Normality Testing .......................................................................... 61

B. Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 62

xiii

1. Correlation Result .......................................................................... 62

2. Hypothesis Testing ......................................................................... 63

C. Discussion ............................................................................................ 64

CHAPTER V: CLOSURE ............................................................................... 66

A. Conclusion ........................................................................................... 66

B. Suggestions .......................................................................................... 67

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Score for Questionnaire Answer ...................................................... 40

Table 3.2 Rubric of Speaking Test ................................................................... 42

Table 3.3 The Result of Questionnaire Validity Test ...................................... 44

Table 3.4 The Result of Questionnaire Reliability Test ................................... 46

Table 3.5 The Interpretation of Correlation Coefficient .................................. 50

Table 4.1 The Students’ Self-Efficacy and Speaking Scores ........................... 51

Table 4.2 The Statistical Scores of Self-Efficacy ............................................ 54

Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution Table of Self-Efficacy Scores .................... 55

Table 4.4 Category Distribution of Self-Efficacy Scores ................................ 57

Table 4.5 The Statistical Scores of Speaking ................................................... 58

Table 4.6 Frequency Distribution Table of Speaking Scores .......................... 59

Table 4.7 Category Distribution of Speaking Scores ....................................... 60

Table 4.8 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ......................................... 61

Table 4.9 The Correlation between Self-Efficacy and Speaking ..................... 62

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Curriculum Vitae

Appendix 2 Research Documentation

Appendix 3 Speaking Test Scoring Sheet

Appendix 4 Speaking Test Media (Pictures)

Appendix 5 Research Questionnaire

Appendix 6 Certification of Graduating Paper’s Counsellor

Appendix 7 Graduating Paper Consultation Sheet

Appendix 8 Satuan Kredit Kegiatan (SKK)

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Research

Learning English is very challenging because the purpose of English

teaching and learning is not simply for understanding the language, but it

requires the learners to be able to use the language for communication needs.

In earlier teaching model, English teaching and learning in the class was

controlled by the teacher. According to Zohrabi et al. (2012), this model is

called as teacher-centered learning where the teacher is being the main role

in the class activities.

According to Regulation of Ministry of National Education and

Culture No. 69 Year 2013, the 2013 Curriculum develops the learning model

from teacher-centered learning becomes student-centered learning. Student-

centered learning approach trains the students to explore their own ability

while the learning process takes place. It trains the students to develop their

critical thinking, creativity, self-confidence, self-regulation, problem

solving ability, and self-efficacy.

Since the 2013 Curriculum was introduced by the Minister of

Education and Culture, student-centered learning is implemented in most of

high schools in Indonesia. Student-centered learning demands the students

to have a great participation in class activities and become independently

active to involve in creating meaning based on their own knowledge and

experiences (Neo and Kian, 2003). While teacher-centered learning places

2

the students as a passive learner who only gain information from the teacher

who acts as the main role. Students who have low self-confidence are forced

to actively involved in the class interaction and sometimes have to perform

in front of the class which can gradually increase their level of self-

confidence.

Student-centered learning approach influences the level of the

students’ perceived self-efficacy because during the class session the

students are allowed to explore and demonstrate their material mastery

which resulting in the desire to be able to perform well. Students are given

the opportunity to communicate to all members of the class (other students

and teacher), share their opinion about the material, and build up knowledge

based on their own experience. They also have responsibility of the learning

in case they are assigned to present the material or the assignment in front

of the class. It will motivate them to do a good performance. In this case,

their self-efficacy will start to grow up.

Bandura (1986) as cited by Cubukcu (2008: 149) defined that self-

efficacy is “people’s judgement of their capabilities to organize and execute

courses of action required to attain designated types of performances”.

Every student in the class has different motivation in joining the learning

activity. Some students are motivated to follow the learning and believe they

can do every task from the teacher while some of them do not.

According to Pajares (2006) as cited by Asarekeh and

Dehghannezhad (2015), students with high level of perceived self-efficacy

3

have more self-confidence to accomplish difficult task, while students with

low perceived self-efficacy think that the task are very difficult for them and

they end up feeling stressed and depressed. Self-efficacy is really significant

for the students to attain achievement and better learning out comes. When

getting tasks which seem difficult, students with high level of self-efficacy

do not give up but keep trying to solve it because they believe they can

accomplish the task.

Learning English as a language is not only simply understanding the

patterns, but also acquiring skills in order to be able to use the language in

real communication. Aydogan and Akbarov (2014: 2) state that there are

four basic language skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing. In order

to be able to use English as a language for communication, speaking is the

main skill which should be mastered. Communication can be held both

written and orally, but oral communication seems more effective than

written communication. moreover, oral communication can be carried out

in the simplest communication such as the communication among students

in the class.

According to Khatib and Maarof (2014), speaking is one of

productive skills which requires the students to have abilities in performing

task. To acquire a good speaking skill, the students need both cognitive and

affective factors. The affective factors that affect the student speaking skills

are self-efficacy, self-confidence, anxiety, self-esteem, and so on. Self-

efficacy can affect the students’ speaking ability because students with high

4

level of self-efficacy simultaneously have high level of confidence that will

motivate them to perform speaking even in easiest level or most difficult

level (Asarekeh and Dehghannezhad, 2015). Speaking self-efficacy is very

significant for the students for getting a good speaking skill as speaking is a

real time activity which requires the students to produce language in

communication.

Most of high schools in Indonesia have implemented 2013

curriculum in their teaching. MAN Salatiga is one of them. As stated above,

the implementation of the 2013 Curriculum which has student-centered

approach can boost the students’ self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is one of the

affective factors which affect the students’ speaking performance.

Based on the phenomena stated above, the researcher would like to

find out whether there is a significant correlation between students’ self-

efficacy and their speaking ability. Therefore, the researcher would like to

conduct a research entitled “THE CORRELATION BETWEEN

STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY TOWARDS THEIR SPEAKING

SKILLS AT THE ELEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF MAN

SALATIGA IN THE ACADEMIC YEAR OF 2018/2019”.

B. Problems of the Research

Based on the background research that has been composed by the

researcher, the problems of the research are formulated as follows:

1. How is the profile of students’ self-efficacy of the eleventh grade

students of MAN Salatiga in the academic year of 2018/2019?

5

2. How is the profile of students’ speaking skill of the eleventh grade

students of MAN Salatiga in the academic year of 2018/2019?

3. Is there any significant correlation between students’ self-efficacy

towards speaking skill of the eleventh grade students of MAN Salatiga

in the academic year of 2018/2019?

C. Objectives of the Research

In accordance with the problems of the research, the objectives of

the research are:

1. To know the profile of students’ self-efficacy of the eleventh grade

students of MAN Salatiga in the academic year of 2018/2019.

2. To see the profile of students’ speaking skill of the eleventh grade

students of MAN Salatiga in the academic year of 2018/2019.

3. To find out the correlation between students’ self-efficacy towards

speaking skill of the eleventh grade students of MAN Salatiga in the

academic year of 2018/2019.

D. Significances of The Research

By conducting this research, the researcher hopes that the result of

this research can give some contributions to the knowledge disciplines and

can be convenient for the readers, especially for English teacher, learner and

researchers.

6

1. Theoretically

The findings of this research can enrich the knowledge of

English speaking skill regarding to the correlation between self-efficacy

towards the speaking skill of the students.

2. Practically

a. For the teachers

The findings of this research can give more information to

the teachers about the correlation between self-efficacy towards the

students’ speaking skill. Therefore, the teachers can look for the

appropriate method or media that can foster the students’ self-

efficacy to gain a better English-speaking skill.

b. For the learners/students

Some students may not realize why are they having a poor

English-speaking skill. By knowing the factors which influence the

level of their English-speaking ability, it can encourage the students

to improve their speaking skill. They will also be able to know their

level of self-efficacy which can help them to analyze the problems

they get when they are performing a speaking.

c. For the readers

For the readers, the results of this research can boost their

insight about the correlation between self-efficacy towards the

students’ speaking skill.

7

d. For other researchers

The results of this research can be used for other researchers

in the future as a reference for a further research.

E. Definitions of The Key Terms

1. Speaking

Speaking is "the process of building and sharing meaning

through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, in a variety of

contexts" (Chaney, 1998 in Kayi, 2006). Speaking is one of the four

language skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking). Speaking is

the most effective way for communication because it deals with oral

communication that is simpler than written communication.

2. Self-efficacy

Bandura (1986) in Cubukcu (2008) defined that self-efficacy is

“people’s judgement of their capabilities to organize and execute

courses of action required to attain designated types of performance”.

Self-efficacy plays an important role for the students in achieving

something or finishing tasks. It is a belief that motivate the students that

they can achieve a good result when they are doing tasks.

3. Student-centered

Student-centered is an approach which places the students as

the main role in the learning activities. Student-centered is a learning

model which facilities the students the opportunity to actively involved

in the knowledge development in which can make them getting better

8

understanding (Wangid, 2014). Students are no more listening to the

teacher talks, but freely delivering ideas, asking questions, and

interacting to other students.

4. The 2013 Curriculum

The 2013 Curriculum is a new curriculum in Indonesia for

primary and secondary education which brings new innovations in the

aspects of curriculum ideas development, curriculum design, process,

and implementation (Hasan, 2013). These new innovations aim to

establish intelligent students who have good character. s

Ratnaningsih (2017) states that teachers in the 2013 Curriculum

implemented scientific approach; observing, questioning,

experimenting, associating, and communicating. The scientific

approach is one of the innovations that differs the 2013 curriculum from

previous curricula.

F. Outline of The Graduating Paper

This paper consists of five chapters. Chapter I is Introduction which

consists of background of the research, problems of the research, objectives

of the research, significances of the research, definitions of the key terms,

and outline of the graduating paper. Chapter II is Theoretical Framework.

This chapter consists of previous researches, theoretical framework, and

hypothesis of the research. Chapter III is Research Methodology. This

chapter consists of research design, setting of the research, population and

9

sample, variables of the research, research instruments, test of the research

instruments, method of the data collection, and technique of the data

analysis. Chapter IV is Description and Analysis of the Data. This chapter

consists of data description, data analysis, and discussion. Chapter V is

Closure which consists of conclusion and suggestions.

10

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Review of Previous Researches

Many researches have examined about self-efficacy in the language

learning. Asarekeh and Dehghannezhad (2015) conducted a research about

the students’ self-efficacy and their skill achievement. The aims of this

research were to find out the relationship between students’ satisfaction with

speaking classes and their speaking skill achievement, students’ speaking

self-efficacy beliefs and their speaking skills achievement, and students’

satisfaction with speaking classes and their speaking skills self-efficacy

beliefs. The participants were one hundred Iranian EFL first undergraduate

students majoring English language selected on a convenience sampling.

The participants consisted of 57 females and 43 males.

The result of this research showed that there was positive correlation

between participants’ satisfaction with speaking classes and their speaking

skill achievement, positive correlation between speaking skills self-efficacy

and their speaking skills achievement, and there was positive correlation

between participants’ satisfaction with speaking classes and theirs speaking

skills self-efficacy beliefs. The three variables correlated each other.

This research is different from Asarekeh and Dehghannezhad (2015)

on the variables investigated. This research aims to find out the relation

between students’ self-efficacy towards their speaking skills. While

Asarekeh and Dehghannezhad (2015) investigated the relationship between

11

three variables, students’ satisfaction with speaking classes, students’

speaking self-efficacy beliefs, and students’ speaking skills achievement.

The second research was conducted by Paradewari (2017). In her

research, Paradewari investigated the students’ self-efficacy of public

speaking. The participants were 43 students of Public Speaking Class in

English Language Education of Sanata Dharma University. The sampling

used was purposive sampling. The result of this research showed that the

students are aware of their self-efficacy while doing public speaking and the

students have a higher self-efficacy in public speaking.

The difference between Paradewi (2017) and this research is this

research aims to find out the relationship between students’ self-efficacy

towards their speaking skills. However, Paradewi investigated how far

students were aware of their own self-efficacy and how was the level of

students’ self-efficacy in public speaking.

The third research was conducted by Ghabdian and Ghafournia

(2016). They examined the correlation between students’ self-efficacy

beliefs towards reading comprehension ability. The participants are one

hundred and twenty English learners from different schools in Neyshabur.

The participants consisted of 65 females and 55 males. The result shows that

there is positive correlation between students’ self-efficacy and their reading

comprehension ability.

The difference between this research and Ghabdian and Ghafournia

(2016) is on the skill examined regarding to the correlation to the students’

12

self-efficacy. This research aims to find out the correlation between

students’ self-efficacy towards their speaking skill. While Ghabdian and

Ghafournia investigated the students’ reading comprehension ability in

correlation to students’ self-efficacy beliefs.

B. Theoretical Framework

1. Speaking

a. Definition of Speaking

Speaking is a crucial matter in language teaching and learning

because a success in learning a foreign language mostly determined by

the ability to speak the language. Ur (1996:120) states that speaking is

unintentionally the most important of other language skills because

people who know a language are referred to a speaker of that language.

Speaking is a productive skill of four language skills in

language teaching and learning. Thornbury (2005: iv) argues that

speaking is interactive and requires the ability to co-operate in the

management of speaking turns, takes pace in real time and little time for

planning. Turn taking should be concerned while a person is speaking

to another. If they are not aware of the turn taking, both speakers may

speak in the same time and the interaction will not be effective.

Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning

which relate to the producing, receiving and processing information

(Brown, 1994; Burns and Joyce, 1997 in Zyoud, 2016). In interactive

communication, a speaker is simultaneously a listener. Thus, speaking

13

becomes an information-exchange. In other paper, Chaney (1998:13) as

cited by Kayi (2014) proposes that speaking is the process of using

verbal and non-verbal symbols in various contexts in constructing and

sharing meaning.

In this research, the researcher follows the theory of Brown

(1994) and Burns and Joyce (1997) cited by Zyoud (2016) which say

that speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning which

relate to the producing, receiving, and processing information. When a

speaker says a statement, there should be another speaker (listener)

receiving the information and process it to reply the statement with

appropriate reaction.

b. Basic Types of Speaking

According to Brown (2004: 141-142), there are 5 basic types

of speaking:

1) Imitative

Speaking is the ability to simply imitate a word or a

phrase or possibly a sentence. This is the simplest way of

speaking. When a student can barely talk in English, she/he can

try to imitate what her/his friends or teacher talk.

2) Intensive

A second type of speaking frequently employed in

assessment contexts is the production of short stretches of oral

language designed to demonstrate competence in a narrow band

14

of grammatical, phrasal, lexical, or phonological relationships

(such as prosodic elements intonation, stress, rhythm, juncture).

The speaker must be aware of semantic properties in order to be

able

to respond, but interaction with an interlocutor or test

administrator is very minimum.

3) Responsive

This type of speaking includes interaction and test

comprehension. The conversation is very short and do not

extend to a further dialogue.

4) Interactive

This type is different from responsive on their length and

the complexity of the interaction. There are two forms of

interactive speaking; transactional and interpersonal.

Transactional speaking emphasizes on the information

exchange, however interactional speaking intends to maintain

social relationship.

5) Extensive (monologue)

Extensive speaking includes speeches, oral productions,

storytelling, during which the opportunity for oral interaction

from listeners is highly limited (perhaps to nonverbal responses)

or ruled out altogether.

15

The test that is conducted in this research is extensive

(monologue) speaking test. Furthermore, the extensive speaking is

mentioned as monologue speaking in this research. To gain the

speaking scores, the students are asked to produce monologue

speaking based on pictures provided by the researcher.

c. Assessing Speaking

Assessing speaking is not a simple matter because there is no

false or true in speaking. Louma (2004, 1) states that assessing

speaking is challenging because it includes many factors which

influence the assessment, and to make the score accurate and

appropriate to the purpose.

1) Aspects in Assessing Speaking

To produce an accurate assessment, the examiner should

assign not only one but also several scores for each response, each

score representing one of several traits (pronunciation, fluency,

vocabulary use, grammar, comprehensibility, etc.) (Brown, 2004

:140). The points which are evaluated in assessing speaking

illustrated as follows:

a) Pronunciation

Having a clear pronunciation makes the speaking be

easily understood be other speakers. In contrast, speaking with

mostly wrong pronunciation can impede the communication

because pronouncing wrong words can cause different

16

meaning and other speaker may have different understanding

of the message. Brown (2000: 283) states that pronunciation is

a fundamental to achieve great communicative competence.

Communication with comprehensible pronunciation is easily

understood and the listeners (other speakers) can get the

correct meaning as the speaker aim to inform. Thus, the goal

of teaching pronunciation should be focused on clear and

comprehensible pronunciation (Brown, 2000:284).

b) Fluency

Thornburry (2005: 6) states that fluency is the ability

to speak fast with some stops to take a breath but not frequently

stop. Frequent pauses on a speaking indicates a less

comprehension of the speaker to speak a language. Similarly,

Koponen (1955) in Louma (2004: 88) proposes that fluency is

a speech which flows smoothly, rapid, no excessive pauses, no

disturbing hesitation markers, long utterances and

connectedness.

c) Vocabulary

Vocabulary is the main aspect for speaking. Without

vocabulary, people do not know how to speak for conveying

information. Alqahtani (2015) states that vocabulary

knowledge is often viewed as a critical tool for second

language learners because a limited vocabulary in a second

17

language impedes successful communication. By knowing lots

of vocabularies, people have words choices for speaking and

uttering meaning. Finally, they can speak appropriately as the

meaning they intend to inform.

d) Grammar

Some people may say that grammar is not something

important in speaking because speaking without correct

grammar still can be understood. That kind of speaking is less

formal, may cause misunderstanding and cannot be used in

every context of speaking with speakers from different

countries. Thornburry (2005: 20) proposes that to produce a

much more advanced meanings, the resources of the

language’s grammar need to be enlisted.

e) Comprehensibility

According to Burns (2003) in Marza (2014),

comprehensibility is achieved if the meaning of what is said

can be understood by the listeners. To be comprehensible,

speakers should speak accurately with appropriate vocabulary

choices. Unorganized speaking will be hard to be understood.

Thus, the meaning speakers intend to inform cannot be

received by the listeners.

18

2) Kind of Test

Louma (2004: 44) proposes that there are two kinds of test

mode in assessing speaking, those are live testing and tape-based

testing. The live testing is conducting face-to-face, the examiner

directly gives scores for the examinees’ performance. In contrast,

tape-based testing is indirect and the is no interaction between

examiner and examinees. In this research, researcher intend to

conduct a live testing because the researcher can directly give

scores for the examinees.

2. The 2013 Curriculum

a. Definition of the 2013 Curriculum

The 2013 Curriculum firstly implemented on the academic

year of 2013/2014. The shift from School-Based Curriculum to the

2013 Curriculum is aimed to reform the education system in

Indonesia. According to Widyastono (2015:119), the 2013

Curriculum emphasizes on the development of cognitive, psycho

motoric, and affective competences of the students holistically. The

2013 Curriculum emphasize not only on the knowledge of the

students, but also on the skills and attitudes.

The 2013 Curriculum is implemented as one of the

resolutions of the government regarding to the demands in

globalization era with rapid development of technology

19

(Ratnaningsih, 2017). The 2013 Curriculum which applies scientific

approach differs from pervious curriculum (School-Based

Curriculum). Scientific approach is the process of quest for

knowledge which involves ideas testing by experimenting ideas and

decision making based on analysis result (Longman, 2014 in Zaim,

2017). Scientific approach encourages the students to build

knowledge, develop critical thinking, and develop their problem-

solving ability. Through the implementation of the 2013 Curriculum,

students are expected to be innovative, creative, competitive, and

skillful.

The 2013 Curriculum does not only emphasize on the

outcomes of the learning, but also the process of the learning.

Therefore, students realize how they acquire knowledge which can

give them deeper understanding. The 2013 Curriculum classes also

place the students as the center of the learning which encourage them

to actively participate to the learning. The active participation of the

students resulting on the establishment of self-confidence, critical

thinking, problem-solving, creativity and so on.

The researcher follows the definition by Widyastono (2015:

119) which says that the 2013 Curriculum aims to develop the

student cognitive, psycho motoric, and affective competences of the

students. Having all the three competences would make the students

be able to compete in this globalization era. The do not only taught

20

to achieve academic accomplishment, but also to have good social

relationship among people.

b. Characteristics of the 2013 Curriculum

According to Regulation of Ministry of Education and

Culture No. 69 Year 2013, the 2013 curriculum is designed by

following characteristics:

1) Developing a balance among the development of spiritual and

social attitudes, curiosity, creativity, collaboration with

intellectual and psychomotor abilities.

2) Schools are part of society that provides a planned learning in

which the students apply what they learn in school to the society

and utilize the society as the learning source.

3) Developing attitudes, knowledge, and skills and applying them

in various situation in school and society.

4) Giving the students adequate opportunity to develop their

attitudes, knowledge, and skills.

5) Competencies are asserted in the form of core competences of

the class which is further detailed in the basic competences of

the subjects.

In implementing the 2013 Curriculum, all those

characteristics should be applied. The students should apply the

knowledge wherever and whenever they are. Thus, the skills will

21

gradually increase if the students always practice the knowledge they

gained in school.

c. The Purpose of the 2013 Curriculum Development

The 2013 Curriculum aims to prepare Indonesian people to

have the ability to live as individuals and as citizens who are faithful,

productive, creative, innovative, and affective and able to contribute

to the life of society, nation, state, and civilization of the world

(Regulation of Ministry Education and Culture No. 69 Year 2013).

Collaboration and group work learning in the class trains the students

how to interact, communicate and build relationship one another.

This is a good preparation for them to live in society as social human.

Individual task in the class provides opportunity for the

students to develop their own skill. Without helps, they have to

accomplish tasks in various level of difficulties. Their problem-

solving skill will start growing. Thus, later on the society, they can

live independently.

3. Student-Centered Learning

a. Definition of Student-Centered Learning

There are two major methods which are used in teaching and

learning process, those are student-centered learning and teacher-

centered learning. The Student-centered learning also called as

learner-centered learning. According to Neo and Kian (2003),

student-centered learning is a learning mode which the students play

22

an active part in their learning process and become autonomous

learners who are actively engaged in constructing new meaning

within the context of their current knowledge, experiences, and

social environments.

According to Doyle (2008) in Bishop et al. (2014), student-

centered learning is an environment that allows students to take

some real control over their educational experience and encourages

them to make important choices about what and how they will learn.

Teachers in student-centered learning is only a facilitator and

instructor for the students to hold their activities. Students are

provided opportunities for gaining their own material and

comprehend it on their own. This kind of activity usually occurs in

form of presentation from the students explaining material for other

students.

Celik and Ozbay (2010) proposes that student-centered

learning encourages the students provide a big participation in the

learning process, encouraging them not only to memorize

knowledge but also relate it to the real world. The concept of

student-centered learning is to attain skill development rather than

only knowing the theory. The skills can be developed through

actively participate to the learning process. The learning will also be

meaningful when it contains some examples of the material which

can provide the students deeper understanding. Similar to Celik and

23

Ozbay (2010), Samson construes that student-centered learning is

engaging every student to make a value le contribution to the

teaching and learning process.

In this research, the researcher follows the definition of Neo

and Kian (2003) where the students are active to engage in the class,

being autonomous, and take a part in constructing knowledge. The

teacher’s role is only as a facilitator who controls the learning

process but not as the main actor.

b. Characteristics of Student-Centered Learning

According to Weimer (2012) in Kumar (2016), there are five

characteristics of student-centered learning:

1) Student-centered engages the students in the hard, messy work

of learning.

During the learning process, several students may not be

able to do difficult tasks and they give up before trying to solve

them. In student-centered, students are given a more difficult

tasks that require hard work. This will make the student

accustomed to complex task which will develop their problem-

solving skill. To be a successful learner, students need to be

strengthened that learning tasks are necessary to develop the

neuron-networks (Bishop et al, 2014).

24

2) Student-centered includes explicit skill instruction.

Students are not only necessary to comprehend the

knowledge but also need to how to acquire knowledge. Student-

centered requires the students to gain learning skill such as

problem-solving, critical thinking, arguments-analyzing. The

students can gain these skills if they are taught explicitly by the

teacher.

3) Student-centered encourages the students to reflect on what they

are learning and how they are learning it.

In the beginning of the learning, students may be asked

by the teacher about what they are going to learn and what is it

by giving some clues. It will encourage the students to think

about how the learning run. By knowing about the learning

themselves, the students is expected to be aware of the learning

and develop their learning skills.

4) Student-centered motivates the students by giving them some

control over learning processes

The role of the teacher in student-centered is only as

facilitator. The students are having chance to decide what will

they learn and how will they learn by given some instruction.

The students given opportunity to manage their own learning

will motivate them to actively engage in the learning process.

As Weimer (2002:31) states that if students are engaged,

25

involved, and connected with a course, they are motivated to

work harder in that course.

5) Student-centered encourages collaboration

Student-centered requires the students to be independent

but not to be individual. It encourages the students to work

collaboratively because they can share knowledge each other.

Roseth et al. (2008) argues that collaborative work towards

mutual goal can bond positive feelings and commitment to work

together. In their paper, Neo and Kian (2003) states that students

become successful in constructing knowledge through solving

real problems in collaboration works.

c. Implementation of Student-Centered Learning

Student-centered learning is a new model which shifts

teacher-centered learning. Students who are used to the

implementation of teacher-centered learning tend to be not familiar

to student-centered learning because student-centered learning

demands the students to actively engage during the learning process.

Students who have low self-confidence will tend to be afraid to

involve in the class activities. Fear can be a main anxiety for less

confident students in accomplishing learning tasks (Weimer,

2002:151). The fear becomes a major anxiety for students.

Student-centered learning aims to promote the development

of both hard skills and soft skills (Sakti: 2014). The former learning

26

(teacher-centered) focuses on the delivery of knowledge from the

teacher to the students where the students are a passive actor.

However, student-centered learning encourages the students to be

active constructing their own knowledge, work in team, and be

responsible to their own learning which resulting in the development

of the students’ soft skills such are self-confidence, self-efficacy,

critical thinking, problem solving, and so on.

Besides having many advantages, the application of student-

centered learning also has drawbacks such as lack experience of the

teacher in using Information and Communication Technology

(ICT), limited infrastructure, negative attitudes of the students

toward student-centered learning (Danner and Pessu, 2013 in Osman

et al., 2015). Thus, in implementing student-centered learning, there

should be training and other preparations for a successful

implementation of student-centered learning.

In teaching English as foreign language, student-centered

learning is also beneficial for teaching four English complex skills

(reading, writing, listening, and speaking). According to Jones

(2007) as cited by Marwan (2017), teaching English four skills using

this learning model can be done by providing the students activities

like discussions, pair work and group work activities. These

activities provide opportunity for the students to help and share their

ideas each other.

27

4. Self-Efficacy

a. Definition of Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is one of affective factors in the language

teaching and learning. The concept of self-efficacy is firstly

proposed by Albert Bandura. According to Bandura (1997: 3),

“perceived self-efficacy refers to belief in one’s capabilities to

organize and execute the courses of action requires to produce given

attainments”. People who are motivated and believe that they can do

tasks given will work harder and never give up on accomplishing the

task.

Ehrman (1996) in Rahimi and Abedini (2009) defines the

concept of self-efficacy as the degree to which the student thinks he

or she has the capacity to cope with learning challenge. Learning

tasks may be challenging for several students which can make them

give up. But for other students challenging activities and tasks of

the learning can motivate them to work harder.

The researcher follows the theory by Bandura (1997: 3) that

self-efficacy is belief in people’s capabilities to organize and carry

out required task to obtain accomplishment.

b. Source of Self-Efficacy

According to Bandura (1997:79-113), self-efficacy beliefs

are constructed by four principles of sources of information which

is discussed as follows:

28

1) Enactive Mastery of Experience

Enactive mastery experiences are the most influential

source of efficacy information because they provide the most

authentic evidence of whether one can muster whatever it takes

to succeed. Experience is very crucial in self-efficacy belief

because either success or failure can determine the further self-

efficacy belief. Success can build a powerful personal self-

efficacy however failure can also undermine it especially if

failure comes before self-efficacy firmly established. By facing

difficulties, people can train themselves to overcome problems

and perform better.

2) Vicarious Experience

Source of information about people’s capabilities is not

solely from enactive experience but it is partly influenced by

vicarious experiences mediated through modeled attainments.

Modeling serves as another effective tool for promoting a sense

of personal efficacy. In some cases, people’s attainments should

be compared to others for judging whether it is good or poor.

Vicarious experiences are generally weaker than direct, but

under some conditions vicarious influences can override the

impact of direct experience. The comparative information

conveyed by modeling may change the assumption of failure

experiences and foster behavior that confirms vicariously based

29

self-conception. Proficient models who have competencies can

be a motivation for people to take a step and people’s personal

efficacy will gradually increase.

3) Verbal Persuasion

People who are persuaded verbally that they possess the

capabilities to master given tasks are likely to mobilize greater

effort and sustain it when difficulties arise. Evaluative feedback

about children improved their capabilities through effort raises

efficacy belief. Otherwise, people who have been persuaded that

they lack of capabilities tend to avoid challenging activities that

cultivate competencies and give up quickly if they face of

difficulties. Generally, people are more motivated when they

have accomplished tasks successfully.

4) Physiological and Affective States

Physiological indicators of efficacy play an especially

influential role in health functioning and in activities requiring

physical strength and stamina. People with high level of

physical efficacy perceive less physiological strain. Affective

states affect the judgement of self-efficacy. Mood is one of the

affective states which can whether arise or undermine personal

efficacy. People can learn faster if the things that they are

learning are congruent with the mood they are in, and they recall

30

things better if they are in the same mood as when they learned

them.

c. Self-Efficacy Processes

Bandura (1997:116-161) states the four major processes

through which efficacy beliefs produce their effects. The beliefs

influence how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and act. The

four processes of self-efficacy are discussed as follows:

1) Cognitive Processes

People’s beliefs about their efficacy influence how they

construe situations and the types of anticipatory scenarios and

visualized futures they construct. Perceived self-efficacy and

cognitive simulation affect each other bidirectionally. A high

sense of efficacy fosters cognitive constructions of effective

courses of action, and cognitive enactments of efficacious action

strengthen efficacy beliefs (Bandura & Adams, 1977; Kazdin,

1979).

A major function of thought is to enable people to predict

events and to develop ways to control those that affect their

lives. Such problem-solving skill require effective cognitive

processing of information that contains many complexities,

ambiguities, and uncertainties. A great sense of efficacy is

needed in facing situational demands, failures, and setbacks that

have significant personal and social repercussions.

31

2) Motivational Processes

Efficacy beliefs play a key role in the self-regulation of

motivation. Most human motivation is cognitively. People

motivate themselves and guide their actions anticipatorily by the

exercise of forethought. They act on their beliefs about what

they can do as well as on their beliefs about likely outcomes of

performance. The motivating influence of outcome

expectancies is thus partly governed by efficacy belief.

3) Affective processes

People’s beliefs of their capabilities in overcoming

problems influence how much stress and depression they

experience in difficult situation, as well as their level of

motivation. Efficacy beliefs affect vigilance toward potential

threats and how they are perceived and cognitively processed.

Self-efficacy also reduces anxiety in the way of

supporting effective modes of behavior that change threatening

environments become safe. Efficacy beliefs regulate stress and

anxiety through their impact on coping behavior.

4) Selective Processes

Beliefs of personal efficacy can shape the courses

people's lives take by influencing the types of activities and

environments they choose to get into. In this process, destinies

are shaped by selection of environments known to cultivate

32

certain potentialities and life-styles. People avoid activities and

environments they believe exceed their coping capabilities. But

they readily undertake challenging activities and select

environments they judge themselves capable of managing.

d. Self-Efficacy and Educational Development

In the process of language teaching and learning, the most

demanding challenge is achieving academic competencies. Some

perspectives view the academic successes are seen by the final

learning scores. But the competencies are not mere defined by

learning scores in the final courses. Competencies are the ability of

the students gained during the learning process. Zimmerman (1997:

202) states that level of efficacy and purpose in the learning are

major influences of the level of accomplishment. Zimmerman (1997:

202-213) proposes the following points regarding to self-efficacy

and educational development:

1) Unique Features of Academic Self-Efficacy

The unique properties of the self-efficacy construction

are included in the assessment methodology. Self-efficacy

involves judgements of capabilities to perform activities,

efficacy beliefs are multidimensional, many nonability

influences can facilitate or impair execution of skills, and related

to students’ dependence on a mastery criterion of performance.

33

2) Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation

Students with high level of self-efficacy in

accomplishing academic task will participate more readily,

work harder, and persist longer when they face difficulties than

they who doubt their capabilities. Self-efficacy contributes to

the students’ skill acquisition by enhancing their persistence.

The successes and failures of others can influence students’ self-

efficacy and motivation. Students with high level of self-

efficacy tend to be motivated and perform difficult task readily,

while they with low self-efficacy will avoid difficult tasks.

3) Self-Efficacy and Academic Achievement

Self-efficacy encourages the students to have

engagement in learning activities. By having participation in

learning activities, students can learn more and develop their

thinking ability and their competencies attainments. This will

affect the level of their achievement as well.

4) Self-Efficacy and Academic Affect

Students’ efficacy beliefs to accomplish task demands

also influence emotional states, such as stress, anxiety, and

depression. Students with high belief of efficacy assume they

are capable of performing task. These students will

simultaneously increase their anxiety level. The students who

34

do not believe on their capabilities will perceive such stress and

depression while facing task demands.

C. Hypothesis of The Research

According to Arikunto (2016: 45), hypothesis is prediction over the

truth regarding to the correlation between two or more variables. Because

the research which is conducted by the writer is a correlational quantitative

research, the hypotheses are going to be statements about whether or not

there is correlation among the two variables.

Arikunto (2016: 47) states that there are two kinds of hypotheses.

Those are:

1. Null hypothesis (Ho)

Null hypothesis is a statement which shows a negative correlation

(no correlation) among variables.

2. Alternative hypothesis (Ha)

Alternative hypothesis is a statement which shows a positive

correlation among variables.

Therefore, the writer aims to propose two hypotheses as follows:

1. Ho: there is no significant correlation between students’ self-efficacy

towards their speaking skills.

2. Ha: there is significant correlation between students’ self-efficacy

towards their speaking skills.

35

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design

Many researches have been conducted to find solutions of problems and

to attain improvements. Educational researches have also been conducted to

improve the quality of education itself. Research can be defined as a process in

which includes some steps for collecting and analysing data to increase the

knowledge of the topic (Creswell, 2012: 3). To solve problems, research is

started with questions and ended by the answers for the questions.

Creswell (2012: 12) states three kind of research designs in general;

quantitative research design, qualitative research design, and combined

research design. This research will be done by using quantitative research

design.

According to Creswell (2012: 12), there are three types quantitative

research design; experimental design, correlational design, and survey designs.

This research will be analysed using correlational research design because this

research is aimed to find out the correlation between students’ self-efficacy

towards their speaking skills.

B. Setting of the Research

This research was conducted in MAN Salatiga on July, 23rd 2018 until

August, 1st 2018. MAN Salatiga is located in St. KH Wahid Hasyim No. 12.

The location is very strategic and can be reached easily. The total amount of

the students in MAN Salatiga is 1.176 students. It is divided into three grades.

36

The tenth grade consists of 391 students, eleventh grade consists of 369

students, and the twelfth grade consists of 416 students. Each grade is divided

into 11 classes. Each class is occupied by 29 up to 40 students. There are 75

teachers and 5 of them are English teachers.

C. Population and Sample

1. Population

Population is a generalized area which is consisted of objects or

subjects that have certain quantity and characteristic determined by the

researcher to be studied and drawn conclusions (Sugiyono, 2017: 61).

Population is not only people, but it can be other animate and inanimate

objects that can be learned.

The population in this research was the eleventh grade students of

Social Classes (XI IPS students) of MAN Salatiga in the academic year of

2018/2019. It is divided into four classes and the amount is 137 students.

The researcher chose the students of Social Classes as the population

because according to the English teacher of MAN Salatiga, Mrs. Hanifah,

the stereotype says that students of Social Classes tend to be not only

disobedient and lazy, but also creative and confident. The researcher was

interested to find out how is the level of the Social Class students’ speaking

skill regarding to their self-efficacy.

2. Sample

Sample is a part of population that will be studied by the researcher

for discovering the population (Creswell, 2012: 142). Sample is the

37

representative of population to be tested in the research. It reflects the

condition of population, therefore the result gained from testing sample

can be said as the result gained from population.

Sampling technique used in this research is simple random

sampling. Sugiyono (2017: 63) states that simple random sampling is a

technique where researcher takes the samples randomly and every member

of the population has the same chance to be taken.

To determine the number of the sample, the researcher used the

following formula:

n =N

1 + Ne²

where:

n = sample

N = population

e = error tolerance (5%, 10%, 15%)

With the error tolerance 10% (0.1), it was gained the number of

samples as the following calculation:

n =137

1 + (137 x 0,12)

n =137

1 + (137 x 0.01)

n =137

1 + 1.37

38

n =137

2.37

n = 57.8059

From the result of the calculation above, the number of samples is

58 (rounded from 57.8059). However, the researcher took 65 samples from

the population. This amount was obtained from the total students of Class

Social Class 3 and Social Class 4 which was the samples chosen by the

researcher.

D. Variables of the Research

According to Sugiyono (2017: 2), variable is everything which is

determined by the researcher to be studied so that can obtain information of the

cases, then can be drawn conclusions.

There are two variables in this research:

1. Independent Variable

Independent variable is a variable that influences and becomes the

cause or the incidence of the dependent variable (Sugiyono, 2017: 4). The

independent variable of this research is the students’ self efficacy and is

noted as (X).

2. Dependent Variable

Dependent variable is a variable which is influenced or becomes

the result, because of independent variable (Sugiyono, 2017: 4). The

dependent variable of this research is the students’ speaking skills which is

noted as (Y).

39

E. Research Instruments

Collecting data is a central phase in conducting a research because those

data are materials that will be analysed to know the result of the research. To

collect data, instrument was needed by the researcher. Research instruments

are tools which is used for collecting data for certain purpose (Periantalo, 2016:

71). There are several types of research instruments; questionnaire, interview,

observation, test, and documentation.

The instruments that was used in this research was questionnaire and

test. Each instrument will be further explained as follows:

1. Questionnaire

Questionnaire is a list of questions given to others with intention that

the person is willing to respond according to the researcher’s request

(Arikunto, 2016: 102-103). The person who is asked to fill out the

questionnaire is called as respondent. The respondents should give valid

information about themselves so that the data will be valid as well.

According to Arikunto (2016: 103), there are three types of

questionnaire which is explained as follows;

a. Open-ended questionnaire

Open-ended questionnaire is a type of questionnaire which

allows the respondents to fill out the questionnaire according to their

will and circumstance.

b. Close-ended questionnaire

40

Different from open-ended questionnaire, in this questionnaire

the respondents only need to give check list (√) on the provided space.

c. Mixed questionnaire

This questionnaire is a mixture of open-ended questionnaire and

close-ended questionnaire.

In this research, the researcher used close-ended questionnaire.

Thus, the students only needed to checklist on provided column based on

their own feeling about the statement. The questionnaire was adopted from

Asarekeh and Deghannezhad (2015) to obtain primary data of the students’

self-efficacy. The total items of the questionnaire are 27 items. Each item of

the questionnaire had five possible answers those are; strongly disagree

(SD), disagree (D), neutral (N), Agree (A), and strongly agree (SA). The

score for each answer is described in table 3.1.

Tabel 3.1

Score for Questionnaire Answer

Questionnaire Answer Score

Strongly Disagree 1

Disagree 2

Neutral 3

Agree 4

Strongly Agree 5

To know the final score, the researcher summed up the scores gained

for each item. Therefore, the possible lowest score is 27 (total items) x 1

41

(possible lowest score) = 27 and the possible highest score is 27 (total items)

x 5 (possible highest score) = 135

2. Test

Test is a method which is used to measure a person’s ability,

knowledge, or performance in a determined area (Brown, 2004: 3). The

researcher conducted a test to gain data of the students speaking proficiency.

According to Brown (2004: 180), there are several tasks to assess the

students’ speaking skill for monologue speaking test. One of them is

Picture-Cued Story Telling test. In this research, the researcher conducted a

Picture-Cued test for monologue speaking. The students were instructed to

produce monologue speaking expressing their opinion about the pictures

given by the researcher.

The test was about suggestion and opinion because the material the

students learned in the eleventh class in the first semester was about

expressing suggestion and opinion. Thus, the students would not be

obstructed in following the test because they have learned about the

material.

The aspects assessed in this test were; grammar, vocabulary, fluency,

and pronunciation because the speaking level of eleventh grade students was

considered low to middle. Thus, it was inappropriate to use more compact

scoring criteria. For guiding the speaking test, the researcher used rubric of

speaking test from Brown (2000: 406-407). The rubric used to assess

students’ speaking skills is presented in table 3.2.

42

Table 3.2

Rubric of Speaking Test

Aspect Score Criteria

Grammar

1 Errors in grammar are frequent, but speaker can be

understood by a native speaker used to dealing

with foreigners attempting to speak his language

2 Can usually handle elementary constructions quite

accurately but does not have thorough or confident

control of the grammar

3 Control of the grammar is good. Able to speak the

language with sufficient structural accuracy to

participate effectively in most formal and informal

conversation in practical, social, and professional

topics

4 Able to use the language accurately on all levels

normally pertinent to professional needs. Errors in

grammar are quite rare.

5 Equivalent to that of an educated native

speaker.

Vocabulary

1 Speaking vocabulary inadequate to express

anything but the most elementary needs.

2 Has speaking vocabulary sufficient

to express himself simply with some

circumlocutions.

3 Able to speak the language with sufficient

vocabulary to participate effectively in most

formal and informal conversations on, social and

professional topics. Vocabulary is broad enough

that he rarely has to grope for a word.

4 Can understand and participate in any conversation

within the range of his experience with a high

degree of precision of vocabulary.

5 Speech on all levels is fully accepted by educated

native speakers in all its

features including breadth of vocabulary and

idioms, colloquialism and pertinent cultural

references.

43

Fluency 1 (no specific fluency description. Refer to other

four language areas for implied level of fluency.)

2 Can handle with confidence but not with facility

most social situations, including introductions and

casual conversations about current events, as well

as work, family and autobiographical information.

3 Can discuss particular interests of competence with

reasonable ease. Rarely has to grope for words.

4 Able to use the language fluently on all levels

normally pertinent to professional needs. Can

participate in any conversation within the range of

this experience with high degree of fluency.

5 Has complete fluency in the language such that his

speech is fully accepted by

educated native speakers.

Pronunciation

1 Errors in pronunciation are frequent but can be

understood by a native speaker used to dealing

with foreigners attempting to speak his language.

2 Accent is intelligible though often quite faulty.

3 Errors never interfere with understanding and

rarely disturb the native speaker. Accent may be

obviously foreign

4 Errors in pronunciation are quite rare.

5 Equivalent to and fully accepted by educated

native speakers.

To find out the final score of speaking test, the researcher summed

up the score of each aspect and multiplied it by 5. Therefore, the possible

highest score is (5+5+5+5) x 5 = 100 and the possible lowest score is

(1+1+1+1) x 5 = 20.

F. Test of the Research Instruments

A good research instrument should be valid and reliable. The research

instruments should be valid and reliable to get a valid and reliable result.

44

1. Validity

Arikunto (2016: 167) states that validity is a condition that describes

the instruments are able to measure what will be measured. Research

instrument have to be valid to collect valid data. Sugiyono (2017: 352-354)

states that there are three kind validity; construct validity, content validity,

and external validity. In this research, the researcher tested construct

validity. The test was to correlate the scores of instrument items to know the

validity. The researcher conducted Pearson Product Moment Validity

Testing using SPSS 16.

The instrument is valid if the r count > r table with significant value 0.05.

If r count < r table with significant value 0.05, the instrument is not valid and

cannot be used to collect data in the research. The amount of the sample (N)

is 65. Thus, the degree of freedom (df) is 65-2= 63 and alpha= 0.05. It is

gained r table= 0.244. The result of the validity test can be seen in table 3.3.

Table 3.3

The Result of Questionnaire Validity Test

No Items r count r table Interpretation

1 0.549 0.244 Valid

2 0.365 0.244 Valid

3 0.657 0.244 Valid

4 0.520 0.244 Valid

5 0.461 0.244 Valid

6 0.424 0.244 Valid

7 0.592 0.244 Valid

8 0.517 0.244 Valid

45

9 0.556 0.244 Valid

10 0.381 0.244 Valid

11 0.687 0.244 Valid

12 0.731 0.244 Valid

13 0.567 0.244 Valid

14 0.285 0.244 Valid

15 0.260 0.244 Valid

16 0.582 0.244 Valid

17 0.256 0.244 Valid

18 0.539 0.244 Valid

19 0.365 0.244 Valid

20 0.341 0.244 Valid

21 0.704 0.244 Valid

22 0.621 0.244 Valid

23 0.360 0.244 Valid

24 0.614 0.244 Valid

25 0.526 0.244 Valid

26 0.471 0.244 Valid

27 0.544 0.244 Valid

2. Reliability

Reliable instrument is when the instrument is used multiple times to

measure the same object, the result remains the same (Sugiyono, 2017: 348).

Reliability refers to a consistency of an instrument in measuring what to be

measured. This research tested internal consistency reliability. It is used to

measure the instruments that have more than one item because it refers to

46

the homogeneity of the test items and how well they measure a concept

(Muijs, 2004: 73).

There are two main ways to calculate internal consistency reliability;

split half reliability and coefficient alpha. In this research, the researcher

used Cronbach’s Alpha technique with SPSSS 16 to find out the reliability

of the instrument. Muijs (2004: 73) states that the instrument is reliable if

the alpha is more than 0.7. The result of Cronbach’s Alpha testing for

reliability is shown in table 3.4.

Table 3.4

The Result of Questionnaire Reliability Test

From the table above, it can be seen that the instrument is reliable

because the Cronbach’s Alpha value is more than 0.7 or 0.739 > 0.7.

G. Method of the Data Collection

Creswell (2012: 140-141) states that there are five steps in collecting

quantitative data; determining participants to study, obtaining permissions

needed from several individuals and organization, considering what types of

information to collect, locating and selecting instruments, and administering

the data collection.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.739 .899 28

47

There are two kinds of instruments in collecting data used by the

researcher:

1. Questionnaire

Questionnaire is a list of questions given to others with intention that

the person is willing to respond according to the researcher’s request

(Arikunto, 2016: 102-103). Questionnaire adapted from Asarekeh and

Deghannezhad (2015) was distributed to collect data about the level of self-

efficacy of the students.

2. Test

According to Brown (2004: 3), test is a method which is used to

measure a person’s ability, knowledge, or performance in a determined area.

The test was used to measure the profile of the students speaking

proficiency.

H. Technique of the Data Analysis

1. Normality Testing

Normality testing is to measure whether the data is distributed

normally or not. This testing is a requirement before the data is analysed.

The researcher used Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality testing. Dahlan

(2009) in Oktavia and Notobroto (2014) states that Kolmogorov-Smirnov

normality testing is appropriate for research with samples more than 50.

Therefore, it is appropriate for this research because the number of samples

is 65. The data is normal if probability (Sig.) more than 0.05 and data is

not normal if probability (Sig.) is less than 0.05 (Tamam: 2015).

48

2. Correlation Analysis

This research is a correlational quantitative research. Thus, to know

the correlation between two variables, the researcher used Correlation

Product Moment technique which was developed by Carl Pearson. The

formula is as follows:

𝑟 =𝑁 (∑ 𝑋𝑌) − (∑ 𝑋) (∑ 𝑌)

√[(∑X²) − (∑X)²][𝑛 (∑𝑌²) − (∑𝑌)²]

Where:

r = Pearson’s correlation coefficient

N = number of participants

X = students’ self-efficacy scores

Y = students’ speaking scores

∑X = the sum of self-efficacy scores

∑Y = the sum of speaking scores

∑X2 = the sum of squared self-efficacy scores

∑Y2 = the sum of squared speaking scores

∑XY = the sum of multiplied scores between X and Y

That formula was used to find out the correlation coefficient “r”

product moment between X and Y.

The criteria are discussed as follows:

If rcount > rtable means there is correlation, Ha is accepted and Ho is

rejected.

49

If rcount < rtable means there is no correlation, Ha is rejected and Ho

is accepted.

Ho: there is no correlation between students’ self-efficacy towards

their speaking skills.

Ha: there is correlation between students’ self-efficacy towards

their speaking skills.

After knowing whether there is correlation or not between two

variables, the researcher would like to know the significance of the

correlation between two variables. The significance can be seen from the

significance value (ρ) with the assumption if ρ > 0.05, the correlation is

not significant but if ρ < 0.05, the correlation is significant.

However, the researcher used SPSS (Statistical Package for Social

Science) 16 to calculate the data. The researcher used SPSS instead of

calculating the data manually in order to get more effective and efficient

way for gaining the result of correlation coefficient between the two

variables.

The correlation coefficient can be negative or positive. Negative

correlation coefficient shows a negative correlation and vice versa.

Negative correlation means the higher the value of variable X, the lower

the value of variable Y. While positive correlation means the higher the

value of variable X, then the higher the value of variable Y. The

50

interpretation of product moment correlation scale will be described in

table 3.4.

Table 3.5

The Interpretation of Correlation Coefficient

Correlation Value (r) Interpretation

0.00 – 0.199

0.20 – 0.399

0.40 – 0.599

0.60 – 0.799

0.80 – 1.000

Very low correlation

Low correlation

Moderate correlation

High correlation

Very high correlation

51

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Data Description

The researcher conducted the research in class XI IPS 3 and XI IPS 4 of

MAN Salatiga in the academic year of 2018/2019. The total amount of the

participants was 65 students. The data of independent variable and dependent

variable gained from the participants are described as follows:

1. Students’ Self-Efficacy and Speaking Skill Scores

The researcher distributed a questionnaire to measure the level of the

students’ self-efficacy. The questionnaire consisted of 27 items. Each item

was classified into close-ended question where the students only needed to

checklist on the answer options provided.

For the speaking skill scores, the researcher gained it by conducting a

monologue speaking test. The students were asked to deliver their opinion

and suggestion based on picture they chose. Some students were able to speak

fluently, but some of them were not. The researcher gave a stimulation by

asking them questions related to the picture for them who faced difficulties.

The scores of students’ self-efficacy and speaking are shown in table

4.1.

Table 4.1 The Students’ Self-Efficacy and Speaking Scores

No. Students’ Code Name Self-Efficacy

Scores (X)

Speaking Scores

(Y)

1. AK 80 45

52

2. ADK 98 40

3. ARQ 72 35

4. AS 65 35

5. AF 71 30

6. DFN 75 35

7. DSI 97 65

8. FNS 97 55

9. FMP 81 60

10. FTR 59 40

11. FI 85 35

12. FNS 83 55

13. IIM 86 45

14. IU 77 35

15. ITM 97 45

16. IKS 94 55

17. JMS 79 35

18. KBA 81 50

19. LNN 89 40

20. MDI 90 55

21. MFF 90 55

22. NLR 90 70

23. NI 84 45

24. PN 75 50

25. PAN 81 55

26. RHA 86 70

27. RI 94 55

28. RA 77 30

29. SER 84 65

30. SRD 77 45

31. SMC 115 75

53

32. TRK 82 50

33. ZM 60 45

34. ARA 71 30

35. AAR 71 35

36. AJC 82 50

37. AKU 90 50

38. ASI 95 50

39 AE 76 45

40. AK 87 50

41. ANM 93 55

42. DRJ 89 55

43. DW 76 40

44. DB 82 60

45. EAD 67 30

46. FA 65 45

47. FL 101 70

48. FM 80 55

49. IS 69 50

50. LF 73 60

51. MI 60 40

52. MAH 76 25

53. MFF 70 30

54. MMA 67 30

55. NAN 74 50

56. NN 80 65

57. PYD 85 45

58. RAK 85 45

59. RMA 96 50

60. RA 75 35

61. SM 76 40

54

62. SL 71 60

63. SN 80 45

64. SL 73 55

65. UM 73 55

Total Scores 5259 3100

a. Interpretation of Self-Efficacy Data

Based on table 4.1, the researcher calculates the statistical scores

of self-efficacy data including mean, median, mode, maximum score,

minimum score, and range of the data. To find out the data needed, the

researcher uses SPSS 16.0. The result is presented in table 4.2.

Table. 4.2

The Statistical Scores of Speaking

Statistics

SELF EFFICACY

N Valid 65

Missing 0

Mean 80.91

Median 80.00

Mode 71a

Range 56

Minimum 59

Maximum 115

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest

value is shown

55

From the table 4.2, it can be seen that the mean is 80.91, the median

is 80, the mode is 71, the range is 56, the minimum score is 59, and the

maximum score is 115.

To know the amount of interval class (k), the researcher used

Sturges formula k = 1 + 3.3 log n, where n is the number of participants

(65). Thus, the amount of interval class is 1 + 3.3 log 65 = 6,98 (rounded

to 7)

After knowing the range (R) and the amount of interval class (k),

the interval (i) can be calculated as i = 56 : 7 = 8.

By using SPSS 16.0, it is gained the self-efficacy scores frequency

distribution table which is shown in table 4.3.

Table 4.3

Frequency Distribution Table of Self-Efficacy Scores

Based on table 4.3, it can be seen that there are 5 students (7.7%

from the participants) in the interval 59-66, 13 students (20% from the

participants) in the interval 67-74, 21 students (32.3% from the

Frequency Distribution

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 59-66 5 7.7 7.7 7.7

67-74 13 20.0 20.0 27.7

75-82 21 32.3 32.3 60.0

83-90 15 23.1 23.1 83.1

91-98 9 13.8 13.8 96.9

99-106 1 1.5 1.5 98.5

107-115 1 1.5 1.5 100.0

Total 65 100.0 100.0

56

participants) in the interval 75-82, 15 students (23.1% from the

participants) in the interval 83-90, 9 students (13.8% from the participants)

in the interval 91-98, 1 student (1.5% from the participants) in the interval

99-106, and 1 student (1.5% from the participants) in the interval 107-115.

To determine the category of the students’ self-efficacy level,

whether it is low or high, the researcher uses a formula which is explained

below. However, it is needed to find out the range ideal (Ri), standard

deviation ideal (SDi), and mean ideal (Mi) for the calculation, the

researcher uses the following formula:

Ri = maximum score (Xmax) –minimum score (Xmin)

= (27x5) – (27x1)

= 135 – 27 = 108

SDi = Ri : 6

= 108 : 6 = 18

Mi = (Xmax + Xmin) : 2

= (135 + 27) : 2

= 162 :2 = 81

From those calculation, the self-efficacy score can be categorized

in 5 (five) categories. The category frequency distribution is explained in

table 4.4.

57

Table 4.4

Category Distribution of Self-Efficacy Score

No. Score F F (%) Category

1. X > 108 1 1.54% Very High

2. 90 < X ≤ 108 10 15.38% High

3. 72 < X ≤ 90 41 63.08% Moderate

4. 54 < X ≤ 72 13 20% Low

5. X ≤ 54 0 0% Very Low

Total 65 100%

Based on table 4.4, a student (1.54% from the participants) has very

high self-efficacy, 10 students (15.38% from the participants) have high

self-efficacy, 41 students (63.08% from the participants) have moderate

self-efficacy, 13 students (20% from the participants) have low self-

efficacy, and none of the participants has very low self-efficacy. It can be

concluded that most of the participants have moderate self-efficacy level.

b. Interpretation of Speaking Data

Based on the speaking scores data presented in table 4.1, the

researcher calculates the statistical scores including mean, median, mode,

maximum score, minimum score, and range of the data. To find out the

data needed, the researcher used SPSS 16.0. The result is presented in table

4.5.

58

Table 4.5

Statistical Scores of Speaking

From the table 4.5, it can be seen that the mean is 47.69, the median

is 50.00, the mode is 55, the range is 50, the minimum score is 25, and the

maximum score is 75.

To know the amount of interval class (k), the researcher used

Sturges formula k = 1 + 3.3 log n, where n is the number of participants

(65). Thus, the amount of interval class is 1 + 3.3 log 65 = 6,98 (rounded

to 7)

After knowing the range (R) and the amount of interval class (k),

the interval (i) can be calculated as i = 50 : 7 = 7.14 (rounded to 7)

By using SPSS 16.0, it is gained the speaking scores frequency

distribution table which is shown in table 4.6.

Statistics

SPEAKING

N Valid 65

Missing 0

Mean 47.69

Median 50.00

Mode 55

Range 50

Minimum 25

Maximum 75

59

Table 4.6

Frequency Distribution of Students’ Speaking Score

Based on table 4.6, it can be seen that there are 7 students (10.9%

from the participants) in interval 25-31, 8 students (12.3% from the

participants) in interval 32-38, 17 students (26.2% from the participants)

in interval 39-45, 10 students (15.4 % from the participants) in interval 46-

52, 12 students (18.5% from the participants) in interval 53-59, 7 students

(10.8% from the participants) in interval 60-66, and 4 students (6.2% from

the participants) in interval 67-75.

To determine the category of the students’ speaking level, whether

it is low or high, the researcher uses a formula which is explained below.

However, it is needed to find out the range ideal (Ri), standard deviation

ideal (SDi), and mean ideal (Mi) for the calculation, the researcher uses

the following formula:

Ri = maximum score (Xmax) –minimum score (Xmin)

= (20x5) – (4x5)

Frequency Distribution

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 25-31 7 10.8 10.8 10.8

32-38 8 12.3 12.3 23.1

39-45 17 26.2 26.2 49.2

46-52 10 15.4 15.4 64.6

53-59 12 18.5 18.5 83.1

60-66 7 10.8 10.8 93.8

67-75 4 6.2 6.2 100.0

Total 65 100.0 100.0

60

= 100 – 20 = 80

SDi = Ri : 6

= 80 : 6 = 13.33

Mi = (Xmax + Xmin) : 2

= (100 + 20) : 2

= 120 :2 = 60

From those calculation, the self-efficacy score can be categorized

in 5 (five) categories. The category frequency distribution is explained in

table 4.7.

Table 4.7

Category Distribution of Self-Efficacy Score

No. Score F F (%) Category

1. X > 80 0 0% Very High

2. 67 < X ≤ 80 4 6.15% High

3. 53 < X ≤ 67 19 29.23% Moderate

4. 40 < X ≤ 53 21 32.31% Low

5. X ≤ 40 21 32.31% Very Low

Total 65 100%

Based on table 4.7, it can be seen that there are 4 students (6.15%

from the participants) who have high speaking level, 29 students (29.23%

from the participants) who have moderate speaking level, 21 students

(32.31% from the participants) who have low speaking level, 21 students

(32.31% from the participants) who have very low speaking level, and

there are no students with very high speaking level. It can be concluded

61

that the participants are dominated by the students with low and very low

speaking level.

2. Normality Testing

Normality testing aims to know whether the data distribution is

normal or not. The normality testing is important as the requirement for

hypothesis testing. The researcher uses Kolmogorov Smirnov Test by using

SPSS 16.0 program. The data distribution is normal if the probability number

is more than 0.05. In contrast, if the probability number is less than 0.05 the

data distribution is not normal. The result of normality test is shown in table

4.8.

Table 4.8

Based on tabe 4.8, it can be seen that probability number (Asymp. Sig)

of self-efficacy is 0.904 > 0.05 and probability number of speaking is 0.605

> 0.05 which means that the data distribution is normal.

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

SELF-

EFFICACY SPEAKING

N 65 65

Normal Parametersa Mean 80.91 47.69

Std. Deviation 10.931 11.561

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .070 .095

Positive .070 .095

Negative -.044 -.090

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .568 .763

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .904 .605

a. Test distribution is Normal.

62

B. Data Analysis

1. Correlation Result

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the researcher used SPSS 16.0

to find out the correlation between the two variables. The result is presented

table 4.9.

Table 4.9

The Correlation between Self-Efficacy and Speaking

Correlations

SELF

EFFICACY SPEAKING

SELF EFFICACY Pearson Correlation 1 .547**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 65 65

SPEAKING Pearson Correlation .547** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 65 65

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

The table 4.9 shows that the correlation coefficient is 0.547 and the

significance value (ρ) is 0.000, and it can be said as a positive correlation

between the two variables. According to the correlation coefficient table

(table 3.4 in Chapter III), the correlation between X and Y variables is

considered as moderate correlation (0.40 – 0.599). It means that there is

positive correlation between students’ self-efficacy and their speaking skills.

63

2. Hypothesis Testing

This research is aimed to answer the hypothesis whether it is

accepted or rejected. The formulated hypothesis is as follows:

1. Null Hypothesis (Ho)

There is no significant correlation between students’ self-efficacy and

their speaking skills.

2. Alternative Hypothesis (Ha)

There is significant correlation between students’ self-efficacy and their

speaking skills.

The hypothesis will be tested as the following criteria:

If r count < r table means Ho is accepted and Ha is rejected.

If r count > r table means Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted.

The correlation coefficient (r count) gained from the SPSS calculation

is r = 0.547. With error level (α) = 0.05, and N = 65, it is gained r table =

0.244. From the calculation, it can be seen that r count is more than r table

(0.547 > 0.244). Therefore, Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted which means

there is correlation between students’ self-efficacy and their speaking skills.

To see the significance of the correlation, the researcher tests the

following hypothesis:

If ρ > 0.05, thus Ho is accepted Ha is rejected.

If ρ < 0.05, thus Ho is rejected Ha is accepted.

From the table 4.8, it can be seen that the significance value = 0.000

< 0.05 which means Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted. Therefore, it can be

64

summed up that there is a significant correlation between the students’ self-

efficacy and their speaking skills. In the other word, the increasing level of

students’ self-efficacy will be followed by the improvements of their

speaking skills.

C. Discussion

As stated in the first chapter, the aim of this study was to investigate

whether there is a significant relationship between the students’ self-efficacy and

their speaking skills of the eleventh grade students of MAN Salatiga in the

academic year of 2018/2019. Speaking is considered as a crucial matter in

learning English because the ability of using the language mostly seen by the

ability to speak. However, most students are anxious to speak English because

they have less self-confidence and belief of their ability. These will influence

them to acquire English speaking skills.

The researcher has collected the data needed for verifying the hypothesis.

There are two instruments used by the researcher, those are questionnaire and

test. The first instrument, questionnaire which consisted of 27 items, was

distributed to the participants to measure the level of students’ self-efficacy. The

second instrument, test, was used to measure the level of the students speaking

skills.

Form the data description, it can be seen that the average score (mean) of

self-efficacy is 80.91 which is considered as moderate level. In the other word,

the average level of the participants’ self-efficacy is moderate. The mean of the

65

speaking score is 47.69 which is considered as low level. Therefore, the average

level of the participants’ speaking skills is low.

According to the calculation, the correlation result between students’

self-efficacy and their speaking skill, r count = 0.547, is higher than r table (0.547 >

0.244). it means there is positive correlation between the two variables. Based

on the table interpretation, the correlation coefficient (r table = 0.547) was

considered as moderate correlation. In addition, the significance value is ρ = 0.00

< 0.05 which means that the correlation was significant.

The finding of this research fits to Asarekeh and Dehghannezhad

(2015)’s work that there is a positive correlation between speaking self-efficacy

and speaking skill achievement (r = 0.560). The finding of this research also

supported the research finding of Ghabdian and Ghafournia (2016) which found

out that there is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and reading

comprehension (r = 0.690).

Based on the description above, the researcher can conclude that there is

a significant relationship between the students’ self-efficacy and their speaking

skills. Thus, the level of self-efficacy can influence the students’ speaking

performance. Students with higher self-efficacy will manage to have higher

speaking skills. The belief of themselves having ability affects their

achievement. Therefore, the level of self-efficacy is one of major influences of

the level of accomplishment (Zimmerman, 1997: 202).

66

CHAPTER V

CLOSURE

A. Conclusion

Based on the findings of the data analysis, the researcher formulates

several conclusions to answer the research problems:

1. The level of the students’ self-efficacy is moderate. Based on the data

analysis, the average score is 80.91 from the scale 27 – 135. Therefore, the

average of the students’ scores are categorized as moderate. The highest score

is 115 and the lowest score is 59. From 65 participants, there are 1 student

with very high score, 10 students with high score, 41 students with moderate

score, and 13 students with low score.

2. The level of the students’ speaking skill is low. The average of speaking score

is 47.69 from the scale 20 – 100. Thus, it is categorized as low. The highest

score is 75 and the lowest score is 25. From 65 participants, there are 4

students with high score, 19 students with moderate score, 21 students with

low score and 21 students with very low score.

3. There is a positive significant relationship between the students’ self-efficacy

and their speaking skills of the eleventh grade students of MAN Salatiga. It

can be proved by the correlation coefficient (r count) and significance value (ρ)

got from the calculation (r count = 0.547, ρ = 0.000). Because the r count is

positive and more than r table (0.547 > 0.244) and ρ = 0.000 < 0.05, therefore

the correlation between students’ self-efficacy and their speaking skills is

positive and significant. The data also shows that students with higher self-

67

efficacy level tend to have a better speaking performance than they who have

lower self-efficacy level. Thus, self-efficacy is one of the factors that

influence the students’ speaking skills. This finding fits to the works of

Asarekeh and Dehghannezhad (2015 and Ghabdian and Ghafournia (2016)

which found out that there is a significant relationship between self-efficacy

and language learning achievement.

B. Suggestions

Based on the research findings and discussion, the researcher proposes

the following suggestions:

1. For teachers

The teachers should more concern to the factors that may influence

the students’ speaking skills, such as self-efficacy. The teachers also should

motivate the students to believe of their ability in accomplishing tasks

because one of sources of self-efficacy is verbal persuasion so that it can

boost the students’ self-efficacy. By having higher level of self-efficacy, the

students will work harder and attain better performance especially in

speaking.

2. For students

The students should have high level of self-efficacy and be

confidence to their ability in accomplishing speaking tasks in order to

achieve good speaking skills. The students should actively participate in the

class activities. This will exercise them to be confidence and increase the

belief of their ability to complete given tasks. Students with high self-

68

efficacy level tend to work harder and not easily give up even when they

make mistakes or failure. Therefore, these students will achieve better

accomplishment because they execute stronger effort.

3. For future researchers

Self-efficacy is a factor that can influence performance and

accomplishment whether it is speaking, writing, or other learning aspects

outside English teaching and learning. Many researches have been

conducted to investigate self-efficacy in accordance to English teaching and

learning. In this research, the researcher investigates the relationship

between self-efficacy and speaking. For future researchers, this research can

be a reference for their researches. The researcher suggests the future

researchers to conduct researches about self-efficacy related to every aspect

of language learning.

69

REFERENCES

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2016. Manajemen Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Alqahtani, Mofareh. 2015. The Importance of Vocabulary in Language Learning

and How to be Taught. International Journal of Teaching and Education.

Vol. III. No. 3. DOI: 10.20472/TE.2015.3.3.002.

Asarekeh, Ahmad and Maliheh Dehghannezhad. 2015. Student Satosfaction with

EFL Speaking Classes: Relating Speaking Self-Efficacy and Skills

Achievement. Issues in Educational Research. 25(4): 345-363.

Aydogan, Hakan and Azamat A. Akbarov. 2014. The Four Basic Language Skills,

Whole Language & Integrated Skill Approach in Mainstream University

Classrooms in Turkey. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. Vol. 5,

No. 9: 672-680.

Bandura, Albert. 1997a. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H.

Freeman and Company.

__________(Ed.).1997b. Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Bishop, Catharine F et al. 2014. Learner-Centered Envirnments: Creating Effective

Strategies Based on Students Attitudes and Faculty Reflection. Journal of

the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Vol. 14. No. 3: 46-63. DOI:

10.14434/josotl.v14i3.5065.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy. United States: Pearson ESL.

_______________. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom

Practices. United States: Pearson Education, Inc.

Celik, Servet and Ali Sukru Ozbay. 2010. Teacher-Centered Versus Student-

Centered Learning: Which Approach Is Most Effective in EFL Clasrooms?.

Humanities and Socal Sciences: 88-89.

Creswell, John W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and

Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. New York: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Cubukcu, Feryal. 2008. A Study on the Correlation Between Self Efficacy and

Foreign Language Learning Anxiety. Journal of Theory and Practice in

Education. 4(3): 148-158.

70

Depdikbud. 2013. Kerangka Dasar dan Struktur Kurikulum Sekolah Menengah

Atas/ Madrasah Aliyah. Jakarta: Depdikbud.

Ghabdian, Farhad and Narjes Ghafournia. 2016. The Relationship Between Iranian

EFL Learners’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Reading Comprehension Ability.

English Linguistics Research. Vol. 5, No. 1: 38-50.

Kayi, Hayriye. 2006. Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in a

Second Language. The Internet TESL Journal. Vol. XII, No.11.

Khatib, Faridatul M. M and Nooreiny Maarof. 2014. Self-Efficacy Perception of

Oral Communication Ability among English as a Second Language (ESL)

Technical Students. Procedia - Social and Behaviour Sciences. 204: 98-104.

Kumar, Manish Kishore. 2016. Challenges of Implementing Student-Centered

Strategy in Classrooms. International Research Journal of Engineering and

Technology (IRJET). Vol. 3. Issue. 12. ISSN 2395-6056.

Louma, Sari. 2004. Assessing Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marwan, Ardi. 2017. Implementing Learner-Centered Teaching in an English as a

Foreign Language (EFL) Classroom. A Journal of Culture, English

Language, Teaching & Literature. Vol.17, No. 1: 46-59. ISSN 2502-4914.

Marza, Nuria Edo. 2014. Pronunciation and Comprehension of Oral English in the

English as Foreign Language Class; Key Aspects, Students’ Perceptions and

Proposals. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 5. No 2: 262-

272. DOI: 10.4304/jltr.5.2.262-273.

Neo, Mai and Ken Neo Tse Kian. 2003. Developing A Student-Centered Learning

Environment in the Malaysian Classroom – A Multimedia Learning

Experience. The Turkish Online Journal of Education Technology (TOJET).

Vol. 2. Issue 1. Article 3. ISSN 1303-6521.

Oktaviani, Mitha A and Hari Basuki Notobroto. 2014. Jurnal Biometrika dan

Kependudukan. Vol. 3 No. 2: 127-135.

Osman, Siti Zuraidah Md et al. 2015. Student Centered Learning at USM: What

Lectures And Students Think Of This New Approach?. Journal of

Education and Practice. Vol. 6, No. 19: 264-277. ISSN 222-288X.

Periantalo, Jelpa. 2016. Penelitian Kuantitatif Untuk Psikologi. Yogyakarta:

Pustaka Pelajar.

Rahimi, Ali and Atiyeh Abedini. 2009. The Interface Between EFL Learbers’ Self-

Efficacy Concerning Listening Comprehension and Listening Proficiency.

Research on Youth and Language. Vol. 3(1): 14-28.

Ratnaningsih, Sri. 2017. Scientific Approach of 2014 Curriculum: Teachers’

Implementation in English Language Teaching. Journal of English

Education. Vol. 6, Issue 1: 33-40.

71

Roseth, Cary J et al. 2008. Collaboration in Learning and Teaching and Statistics.

Journal of Statistics Education. 16:1. DOI:

10.1080/10691898.2008.11089557.

Sakti, Intan Widuri. 2014. Implementation and Evaluation of a Student-Centered

Learning in Faculty Business and Management. Professional Development

in Education. 129-133.

Sugiyono. 2017. Satistika Untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Tamam, Badrut. 2015. Hubungan Antara Kemampuan Memahami Kitab Kuning

dengan Kemampuan Lisan dan Tulisan Bahasa Arab. Syamil. Vol.3 No.1.

Thornbury, Scott. 2005. How to Teach Speaking. Harlow: Pearson Education

Limited.

Ur, Penny. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Wangid, Muhammad Nur. 2014. Student-Centered Learning: Self-Regulated

Learning. Yogyakarta State University: 161-165.

Weimer, Maryellen. 2002. Learner-Centered Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Zaim, M. 2017. Implementing Scientific Approach to Teach English at Senior High

School in Indonesia. Canadian Center of Science and Education. Vol. 13,

No. 2: 33-40.

Zohrabi, Mohammad et al. 2012. Teacher-Centered and/or Student-Centered

Learning: English Language in Iran. English Language and Literature

Studies. Vol. 2, No. 3: 18-30.

Zyoud, Munther Mohammad. 2016. Theoretical Perspective on How to Develop

Speaking Skill among University Students. Pune Research Scholar an

International Multidisplinary Journal. Vol. 2, Issue 1: 1-10.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : Siti Fatimah

Place and Date of Birth : Kab. Semarang/ December, 2nd 1996

Address : Dsn. Rogomulyo, RT/RW. 01/08, Ds. Rogomulyo,

Kec. Kaliwungu, Kab. Semarang

Gender : Female

Religion : Islam

Email : fatimazahra550@gmail.com

Phone : 0858-7559-6270

Educational Background :

➢ 2002 – 2008 : SD N ROGOMULYO 1

➢ 2008 – 2011 : MTs AL – FALAH JETIS

➢ 2011 – 2014 : SMK MUHAMMADIYAH SALATIGA

➢ 2014 – 2018 : IAIN SALATIGA

Appendix 2

Research Documentation

The researcher introduces herself and

explains the research to the students

The researcher explains the items of the

questionnaire and how to answer it

The students fill the questionnaire

Speaking Test

The researcher with the students (participants of the research)

Appendix 3

Speaking Test Scoring Sheet

Day/ Date : July, 25th 2018

Class : XI IPS 3

No. Student’s

Code

Name

Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Pronunciation Final

Score

1. AD 3 2 1 3 45

2. ADK 2 2 2 2 40

3. AR 1 2 2 2 35

4. AS 2 1 2 2 35

5. AF 2 1 1 2 30

6. DFN 1 2 2 2 35

7. DSI 2 4 4 3 65

8. FNS 2 3 3 3 55

9. FMP 2 3 4 3 60

10. FTR 2 2 2 2 40

11. FI 2 2 2 1 35

12. FNS 2 3 3 3 55

13. IIM 2 2 2 3 45

14. IU 1 2 2 2 35

15. ITM 2 2 3 2 45

16. IKS 3 3 2 3 55

17. JMS 5 1 2 2 35

18. KBA 5 3 3 2 50

19. LNN 5 2 2 2 40

20. MDI 5 4 3 2 55

21. MFF 5 3 3 3 55

22. NLR 3 3 4 4 70

23. NI 2 3 2 2 45

24. PN 2 3 3 2 50

25. PAN 2 3 3 3 55

26. RHA 3 4 4 3 70

27. RI 2 2 4 3 55

28. RA 1 1 2 2 30

29. SER 2 4 4 3 65

30. SRD 2 3 2 2 45

31. SMC 3 4 4 4 75

32. TRK 2 2 3 3 50

33. ZM 3 2 2 2 45

Speaking Test Scoring Sheet

Day/ Date : July, 27th 2018

Class : XI IPS 4

No. Student’s

Code Name

Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Pronunciation Final

Score

1. ARA 1 1 2 2 30

2. AAR 2 2 1 2 35

3. AJC 2 3 3 2 50

4. AKU 2 3 3 2 50

5. ASI 2 3 3 2 50

6. AE 2 2 3 2 45

7. AK 2 2 3 3 50

8. ANM 2 3 3 3 55

9. DRJ 2 3 4 2 55

10. DW 2 2 1 3 40

11. DB 2 3 4 3 60

12. EAD 1 2 1 2 30

13. FA 1 3 3 2 45

14. FL 3 4 3 4 70

15. FM 2 3 4 2 55

16. IS 2 3 3 2 50

17. LF 3 3 3 3 60

18. MI 2 2 2 2 40

19. MAH 1 1 1 2 25

20. MFF 2 1 1 2 30

21. MMA 1 2 1 2 30

22. NAN 3 2 2 3 50

23. NN 3 3 3 4 65

24. PYD 2 2 2 3 45

25. RAK 2 2 3 2 45

26. RMA 2 3 3 2 50

27. RA 1 2 2 2 35

28. SM 2 2 2 2 40

29. SL 3 3 3 3 60

30. SN 2 2 1 2 45

31. SLI 3 3 3 2 55

32. UM 2 3 4 2 55

Appendix 4

Mr. Jokowi (The President of Indonesia)

A student is cheating during an exam

Smartphones

People are going to evacuate themselves

because of a flood

MAN Salatiga (One of Islamic High School in Salatiga)

Appendix 5

Self-Efficacy Questionnaire

Adopted from Asarekeh and Dheghannezhad (2015)

Name: …………………………………..

Class: ………………

Instructions:

1. Read the statements carefully.

2. Give honest opinion based on your own self for each statement.

3. Don’t ask your friends answer to fill the questionnaire.

4. Checklist (√) on one of the options which fits you best.

SD = Strongly Disagree A = Agree

D = Disagree SA = Strongly Agree

N = Neutral

No. Items SD D N A SA

1. I have enough ability to improve my speaking skills.

2. I am sure that if I practice speaking more, I will get better

grades in the course.

3. I can speak better than my classmates.

4. Even if the speaking task is difficult and I don’t have the

required vocabulary, I can find the strategy to get the message

across.

5. I am not stressed out when speaking English in the classroom.

6. I enjoy speaking with a proficient partner.

7. I am one of the best students in speaking courses.

8. I enjoy meeting tourists because I can speak with them well.

9. The more difficult the speaking practice is, the more

enjoyable it is.

10 When the instructor asks a question, I raise my hand to

answer it even if I’m not sure about it.

11. I'm confident about my ability to interact with other English

speakers.

12. While speaking, I can deal efficiently with unexpected

situations.

13. While speaking, I can remain calm when facing difficulties.

14 When I’m talking with fluent speakers, I let them know if I

need help.

15. I'm confident I can communicate what I mean easily.

16 I feel confident that I can achieve a native-like accuracy in

speaking.

17. I'm able to actively participate in my speaking classes.

18. I'm sure I can use English outside the classroom.

19. I believe I am a good English speaker.

20. I can describe my university to others in English.

21. I can tell a story in English.

22. I can ask my teachers questions in English.

23. I can produce sentence with idiomatic expressions.

24. I can introduce my teacher to someone else in English.

25. I can discuss subjects of my interest with my classmates

26. I can introduce myself in English.

27. I can answer my teachers’ questions in English