ARTICLE JOURNAL

ARTICLE JOURNAL

• 1.
  i CORRELATION OF STUDENTS’SELF-EFFICACY AND ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL SYIFA NAUVAL MUFTIA Indonesia University of Education e-mail: [email protected] PUPUNG PURNAWARMAN Indonesia University of Education e-mail: [email protected] MUHAMMAD HANDI GUNAWAN Indonesia University of Education e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to find out the correlation of students’ self-efficacy and students’ speaking skill. This study involved sixty students of eighth grade in a junior high school in Cimahi. In this study, the data were gathered in two ways: questionnaire and speaking test. The analysis of the data was done within the theoretical frameworks of self-efficacy by Bandura (1982) and the speaking assessment criteria used to score the students’ speaking skill was the combination of IELTS and SQA (Scottish Qualification Association) speaking assessment criteria. The students’ self-efficacy score and speaking test score were computed by using Pearson Product Moment Correlation formula. The findings indicated that 5 students (8.20%) had very high self-efficacy and 13 students (21.31%) had high self-efficacy in speaking skill. Almost half of the participants (42.62%) had medium self-efficacy belief in their speaking skill. Meanwhile, there were 14 students (22.96%) who had low self-efficacy and 3 students (4.92%) who had very low self-efficacy in speaking skill. The test had covered the components defined by Harris (1969) in the form of the IELTS-SQA speaking assessment criteria. In addition, the correlation coefficient between the students’ self-efficacy score and speaking test score was 0,65. It indicated that the correlation was strong and positive. This study brought to a close that the correlation between self- efficacy and speaking skill is, the higher the self-efficacy level the higher the speaking skill as well, and vice versa. Keywords: Self-efficacy, speaking skill, speaking assessment, correlational study.
• 2.
  2 INTRODUCTION Speaking is arguablyused for education and business field. Someone’s mastery of language can also be seen from the speaking ability. Despite the decades of teaching and learning English at schools, the English competence of Indonesian graduates is considered low. There are several hypotheses reasons why most of Indonesia failed to have the ability to speak English well. One of them is because of the position of the English language is placed as a foreign language and not as a second language. As a result of it, for most Indonesians, English is not actively used in daily interactions or in academic settings. Due to the lack of practice of the English language, has caused their confidence becomes lower when required to communicate in English in real life. And as is known, to communicate with a foreign language self-confidence is very important. In the study of psychology, especially cognitive psychology, self- esteem is often called self-efficacy which Bandura (1997) defined it as the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments”. Especially in terms of speaking, self-efficacy is an essential factor since speaking is a productive skill that challenges students’ capability to perform a task. The key to communication is the ability to communicate or speak with other people. Speaking is carried out in a real- time which demands learner’s abilities to plan, process and produce the language. This poses as a difficult task for students attempting to master speaking skills, especially EFL learners. Based on the explanation above, this study is purposed to find out students’ self-efficacy level in speaking English and to figure out how their self-efficacy level correlates with their speaking skill. LITERATURE REVIEW Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy refers to the beliefs that someone has about his capability to do something specific, and those beliefs will lead him to endeavor his desired performance. Bandura (1997) defines self- efficacy as "the beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments". For instance, in the field of English as foreign language, self-efficacy is not measured by one's score in English subject but rather the beliefs that he holds regarding his specific ability in speaking English or in other skills. Since Bandura's study on self- efficacy in 1982, several studies have shown a positive correlation between high self-efficacy beliefs and a successful performance. The beliefs that individual holds about his capability could influence his efforts and actions, therefore, self- belief serves as an excellent predictor of future performances (Bandura, 1997). Self-belief is hypothesized to affect individual choice regarding to the activities, effort, persistence, and achievement (Bandura, 1994), as well as determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave. Within one's self-efficacy are dimensions that have implications on a person's performance. Bandura (1997: 42) divides the self-efficacy into three dimensions, namely the Magnitude/Level, Generality, and Strength. Magnitude/Level Dimension refers to the degree of difficulty which an individual believe to be able to cope. While the Generality dimension is a variation in situations where individuals feel confident to be able to do something. And lastly, the Strength dimension. This dimension relates to the strength of a person's self-efficacy when dealing with the demands of a task or a problem.
• 3.
  3 Self-Efficacy in AcademicContext The concept of self-efficacy is not only known in psychological context but it is also well known as useful prediction in academic fields (Spicer, 2004; Zimmerman, 2000). Academic self- efficacy refers to students' confidence in their ability to carry out such academic tasks (Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). It can be seen from a finding that self-efficacy has emerged as a highly effective predictor of students' learning results (Zimmerman, 2000). Besides, according to Spicer (2004), there are three distinct ways how self-efficacy affects students' learning. Firstly, students with higher levels of self- efficacy art' more likely to set themselves higher goals and persevere to meet those goals. Whereas, students with lower self- efficacy may set lower goals and furthermore, avoid the task becomes difficult. Second, self-efficacy beliefs also affect students when the students hold a low sense of self-efficacy to achieve a task, they may give up easily. In the opposite, students who believe they are capable will participate more readily (Schunk, 1996). Third, self-efficacy will influence students' logic. A student with low self-efficacy may believe a task is harder than it actually is, and it leads to a reduction of effort and persistence. High self-efficacy on the other hand can create feelings of serenity when approaching difficult tasks (Pajares, 1996), and leading students to apply themselves further. Therefore, students with high levels of self-efficacy are expected to be able to set and pursue challenging goals and are more likely to apply rigorous effort, seek out new solutions and persevere whenever they face difficulties in learning English as foreign language. The Influence of Self-Efficacy in Speaking English One of the most consistent findings thus far is that self-efficacy for the target language in general appears to be positively associated with achievement as described by course grades in the target language (Wang, Spencer, & Xing, 2009). Interestingly, self-efficacy in particular domains of language learning was significantly related to proficiency in those domains reading and listening proficiency (Rahimi & Abedini, 2009). Furthermore, a study, which was conducted by Dodds (2011) about the correlation between self- efficacy beliefs and the language performance among Chinese immigrant newcomers in Canada, proved that there was a significant positive correlation between English-speaking self-efficacy beliefs and English speaking performance among the participants. Surprisingly, Rahemi (2000) revealed in her study about "self-efficacy in English and Iranian senior high school majoring in humanities", that the Iranian students who learn English as a foreign language usually had a very low English self-efficacy. The significant point between this study and Rahemi's study is that the participants in this study are also junior high school students who learn English as a foreign language. Therefore, this study can take the advantages of Rahemi's study for supporting the findings. Speaking Speaking can be easily defined as a productive skill or communication skill. Brown (2001) defines speaking as an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information. Saville-Troike (2006) explains that speaking in social context involves knowing not only the vocabulary, phonology, and other aspects of linguistic structure, but also when to speak, what to say to whom, and how to say it appropriately. As proverb says ‘practice makes perfect’. Therefore, students must practice to speak English as often as possible so that they are able to speak English fluently and accurately. A part of that, to speak
• 4.
  4 English, we haveto know some important component. The component is what aspect influencing how well people speak English. Supported by Harmer (2001) and Thornbury (2007), the component of speaking skill according to Harris (1969), which covers grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and fluency. a) Pronunciation: Nation and Newton (2009) argued that pronunciation includes the articulation of individual sounds, stress, and intonation. Stress and intonation play the most important role in pronunciation. Brown (2001) believed that the stress-timed rhythm of spoken English and its intonation patterns convey important message. b) Grammar: In general, the grammar of spoken sentences is simpler and less strictly constructed than the grammar of written sentences (Leech and Svartvik, 1979). Halliday (2004) believed that people should start to explore its grammar in functional terms: that is, from the standpoint of how it creates and expressess meaning. c) Vocabulary: The role of vocabulary in spoken language could be as a function word. According to Saville-Troike (2006), the most frequently used words in spoken English include interjections yeah, oh; contractions it’s, that’s; and verb expressing personal opinion or feeling know, like, think. Those words are highly functional in speaking to help the speaker expressing the statement. d) Fluency: In many communicative language courses, be an initial goal in language teaching (Brown, 2001). Fluency deals with the speaker’s flow in speaking and the nature of the language. In order to speak fluently, the speaker needs some range of things, as stated by Pinter (2006), such as what is appropriate to say in certain situations, how to manage conversations, and how to interrupt and offer the speaker’s own contributions. Besides, Harmer (2001) expresses two main categories of speaking aspects namely accuracy and fluency. Firstly, accuracy covers the language features, such as the correct use of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. Secondly, Thornbury (2007) describes fluency as a condition when pausing is rarely happening, since frequent pausing is a sign of a struggling speaker no matter how accurate the words are. Assessing Speaking In order that speaking be tested in conditions that covers, at least, the two most important aspects of speaking: accuracy and fluency, thus in this study the researcher chooses question and answer to be tested to students, which adapted from one of the task of TOEIC Speaking Test. The purpose of choosing TOEIC as the speaking test is based on ETS’s argument that TOEIC speaking and writing tests are valid assessments of a person’s ability to speak and write in English (ETS, 2012). Besides that, the TOEIC speaking test tasks are organized to support a claim that the test taker can generate language intelligible to native and proficient non- native English speakers (Trew, 2010). The task used in this research was only composed of 1 task. Throughout the task, the test taker is asked four questions about a topic. The questions are presented below.
• 5.
  5 Questions 1-4: Respondto questions Directions: In this the test, you will answer four questions. For each question, begin responding immediately after you finish listening to the question. No preparation time is provided. You will have 10 seconds to respond to Questions 1, 2, and 3, and 30 seconds to respond to Question 4. (Total time 1”) Topic: Describe your hobby. Question 1: What’s your hobby? Question 2: Do you do it often? Question 3: Why do you like it? Question 4: Tell about how you usually do your hobby. Adapted from ETS (2012) Criteria of Assessing Speaking The speaking assessment criteria that will be used in this research is the combination of SQA (Scottish Qualification Association) Speaking Criteria for Modern Languages for level Intermediate 1, which assess schools students for learners from age 3 to 18 and IELTS speaking assessment criteria. The consideration of choosing the speaking assessment criteria is supported by Luoma’s argument (2004) that the scales must always be related to the purpose of the test and the definition of the construct to be assessed. The assessment highlights the important parts of speaking such as fluency and coherence, lexical resource or vocabulary, grammar and accuracy, and pronunciation. The researcher found the similarities from each criteria then put the criteria together on the same band, those are: fluency, lexical resource or vocabulary, grammar and accuracy, and pronunciation.These criteria are chosen because they cover the need of the production of speaking ability, while the other criteria are necessarily omitted. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study applied Quantitative- correlational embracing descriptive research, since this research is aimed to describe variables, which are self-efficacy and speaking skill; and to examine relationships between the two variables. A quantitative analysis was considered appropriate to count and interpret the data from the questionnaire and the speaking test. The research question was aimed to find the correlation of the students’ self- efficacy in speaking English with their speaking skill. The eighth grade students of a junior high school in Cimahi were selected as sample of this study, with 60 students in total. Questionnaire was chosen as the first instrument to find out the self- efficacy level of 60 participants. A close- ended questionnaire adapted from Bandura’s “Children's Perceived Academic Self-Efficacy” (Bandura, Pastorelli, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Rola, & Rozsa, 2001) was employed in this study. There were 15 questions adapted, which were very task-specific, included in the questionnaire related to students’ academic achievement. A five Likert scale was applied on it, ranged from 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Very Good). The results were analyzed by using SPSS 20.0 in order to check the validity and reliability of the data. An ordinal category formula was also applied to determine students’ self-efficacy level. The second variable of the research question was aimed to find students’ speaking skill level. One of the ways to identify the factors is by conducting an oral test. The test questions used in this research was from TOEIC speaking test. The speaking test was conducted by asking students using TOEIC sample questions to gain students’ speaking proficiency level. The students’ answers were scored based on the criteria of speaking assessment by the combination of SQA and IELTS. The speaking assessment criteria included fluency and coherence, lexical resource,
• 6.
  6 grammatical range andaccuracy, and pronunciation. The scores from the questionnaire and test mentioned were produced by using Pearson Product Moment Correlation formula to see the correlation between the scores, whether the correlation was positive or negative. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Finding of Students’ Self-Efficacy Levels in Speaking English In response to the first research variable which is self-efficacy, the data from the questionnaire of 60 participants on self-efficacy in speaking English were statistically calculated and processed by using ordinal category formula. The data was presented in a set of table below. Table Error! No text of specified style in document.1. The descriptive statistic of students' self-efficacy in speaking English questionnaire score N Mean Min Max Std. Dev. Self- efficacy Valid N (listwise) 60 42.00 105.00 -14.61 14.05 60 Table 4.1 shows that the mean score of the students' self-efficacy on speaking English is 74.67, and the standard deviation is 14.05. Meanwhile, the minimum score gathered from the questionnaire falls in 42, and the maximum score is 105. These data were further processed by using the ordinal category formula. All participants were categorized into their own level based on the five levels of self-efficacy, namely very high, high, medium, low, and very low. The finding showed that the self- efficacy level of the participants in five levels of self-efficacy in speaking English was quite moderate. Table 2. Students' self-efficacy levels in speaking English No Classification Scoring Range Count % 1 Very High Self-Efficacy X ≥ 95.71 5 8.20% 2 High Self- Efficacy 81.70 ≤ X ≤ 95.74 13 21.31% 3 Medium Self- Efficacy 67.65 ≤ X ≤ 81.70 27 42.62% 4 Low Self- Efficacy 53.60 ≤X ≤ 67.65 14 22.96% 5 Very Low Self- Efficacy X < 53.60 3 4.92% Total 60 100% The table describes the percentages of the students' self-efficacy in speaking English of eighth grader in a junior high school. There were 5 students (8.20%) who had very high self-efficacy level and 13 students (21.31%) who had high self- efficacy level in speaking English. 26 students (42.62%) had medium self- efficacy level in speaking English. Meanwhile, there were 14 students (22.96%) who had low self-efficacy level and 3 students (4.92%) who had very low self-efficacy level in speaking English. Finding of Speaking Test Result The speaking test was administered to see the students’ speaking proficiency level. The test was composed of 4 questions. During giving score to the participants, the researcher was accompanied by two other judges from the school English teachers. Each question was scored by using IELTS-SQA Speaking Assessment criteria. The tasks of the test were dealing with the students’ ability in responding the questions. Mostly the students scored 3 and 1 on those tasks. On question 1 and 2, the students obtained the score of 3. It means that the responses were full and relevant to the questions. For the information, question 1 and 2 asked about the students’ general information which was the hobby of students. Question 3 asked about the intensity of students in doing their hobby. While question 4 asked
• 7.
  7 about how theyusually do it. On the contrary, most of the students scored 1 on task 5. It means that the students’ responses did not answer the question effectively. On question 6, the students were asked to describe their hobby. Mostly, the students only responded by mentioning their hobby rather that describing it. Each response from each questions have been transcribed and scored by using IELTS-SQA Speaking Assessment criteria. Five bands and five criteria were used to measure the students’ speaking skill. There are four criteria which are assessed in the IELTS-SQA speaking assessment criteria, such as, fluency and coherence, lexical resource, grammatical range and accuracy, and pronunciation. The score is obtained from the division of the total score. The score from each criteria are summed up to get the total score. After that, the total score is divided by 4 to obtain the final score of the students’ speaking test. Most of the students obtain the score of 3 for their speaking test. Table 3. Distribution of Respondents of Speaking Skill Level No. Interval Category amount % 1. 85% <score ≤ 100% Very high 12 20 2. 69% <score ≤ 84% High 11 18 3. 53% <score ≤ 68% Moderate 21 35 4. 37% <score ≤ 52% Low 9 15 5. Scores ≤ 20% ≤ 36% Very low 7 12 Total 60 100% Finding of Correlation of Students’ Self- Efficacy and Speaking Skill From the relationship or correlation between the students’ self-efficacy in speaking English score and the students’ speaking test score, the implication of the speaking test is able to be identified. In the meantime, the example of students’ self- efficacy in speaking English score and the example of students’ speaking test score are presented in the table below. Table 4. Students’ Tests Scores St d. Self- Effica cy Score (𝔁) Speaki ng Test Score (𝒚) St d. Self- Effica cy Score (𝔁) Speaki ng Test Score (𝒚) 1 3 3 6 5 5 2 5 4 7 4 5 3 5 5 8 5 5 4 5 5 9 5 5 5 5 5 10 4 3 Each score of the tests was calculated to find the correlation between the score of the two tests by using Pearson Product Moment Correlation formula. The formula adapted from Susanti (2010), is as follows. 𝑟 = ∑ 𝑥 𝑖 𝑦𝑖 √∑ 𝑥 𝑖2 . √∑ 𝑦𝑖2 Where, 𝑟 is correlation coefficient 𝑥 𝑖 is the score of 𝓍 (self-efficacy score) minus the mean of 𝓍 score 𝑦𝑖 is the score of 𝑦 (speaking test score) minus the mean of 𝑦 score The formula above was then applied to the students’ speaking test score. The calculation result is presented below. Table 5. Correlation Test Result From the correlation table above, the obtained correlation coefficient is +0.650. To give the interpretation of the correlation coefficient, Sugiyono (2013) Speaking Skill Self- efficacy Speaking Skill Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation 1 60 .650** .000 86 Self-Efficacy Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation .650** .000 86 1 86
• 8.
  8 provides a tableas an orientation to see the strength of a correlation coefficient. Table 6. Sugiyono’s Relationship Level of Correlation Coefficient Coefficient Interval Relationship Level 0,00 – 0,199 Very low 0,20 – 0,399 Low 0,40 – 0,599 Moderate 0,60 – 0,799 Strong 0,80 – 1,000 Very strong The result using Pearson Product Moment Correlation showed there was a positive and significant relationship between students’ self-efficacy and students' speaking skill. It is based on the value of the correlation coefficient of + 0.650 and a significance level of 0.000 (p<0.05), where the relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their speaking skill is included in the strong category. The positive result indicates the direction of the relationship of students’ self- efficacy and students’ speaking skill has a positive direction, ie, the higher the student self-efficacy level, the higher his/her speaking skill as well. Conversely, the lower the self-efficacy level that the student has, the lower the attained speaking skill will be. DISCUSSION Discussion of Students’ Self Efficacy Score Based on the finding, the table 1 had described the distribution of students' self-efficacy levels in speaking English. The discussion starts from the medium level of self-efficacy, since almost half of the students fell in that level. These students with medium self-efficacy did not have courage to speak English as big as the 5 students with very high self-efficacy, and other 13 students with high self-efficacy. The students' scores in medium level mostly laid between 67.7 to 81.7. In this case, the average students have a tendency to believe in their speaking skill. The students who have self-efficacy in the category might mean that students tend to be quite sure on their abilities, especially speaking, felt confident of being able to accomplish English speaking tasks well, and be able to respond to different situations. According to Bandura's theory of self-efficacy, the students who have medium self-efficacy tend to choose the safest way according to them. For example, if they are not sure in their capabilities to approach difficult tasks, they tend to refuse the task. However, if it is an obligation, they will finish the task, but do not put high expectation on it. There were five students (8.20%) who had very high self-efficacy and 15 students (21.31%) who had high self- efficacy level. It is a good indication of self-efficacy towards the English subject, especially for speaking skill. As the previous study by Dodds (2011) found that, the participants who had strong beliefs in their abilities to perform certain speaking tasks were subsequently able to perform those tasks to a high degree. In addition, people with high belief in their capabilities approach difficult tasks as challenges (Spicer, 2004). However, there are some students who belong to the low self-efficacy category. This shows that there are still some students who have not been able to believe in their abilities and has not been able to make plans for the future. A strong belief in the individual will encourage the individual to achieve its objectives. In this stage, the students are capable enough to face the obstacles that get in the majors a favorite with business and durability themselves that they have and quite committed to the tasks and the consequences will be faced later. Furthermore, high self-efficacy students also lace the difficult and challenging tasks more readily (Zimmerman, 2000). As they set the challenging goals, they maintain strong commitment to themselves and the goals, sustaining their efforts if failure happens
• 9.
  9 and quickly recovertheir sense of efficacy towards the goals after failures. They believe the failure is caused by deficient knowledge and skills, which push them to learn more. Meanwhile, the number of students with very low self-efficacy level in speaking English was not as many as the other levels, since there were only 3 students (4.92%) who had score under 53.6. Even so, there were 14 (22.9) students who had low self-efficacy level in speaking English. In line with the previous study conducted by Rahemi (2000) about “self-efficacy in English and Iranian senior high school majoring in humanities”, the significant point was that the Iranian students who learned English as a foreign language usually had a low English self- efficacy. In accordance with the theory, students with low-level self-efficacy usually stay away from difficult tasks and see it as personal threats, since they doubt their capabilities to fulfill a task (Dodds, 2011). Moreover, when students hold a low sense of self-efficacy for achieving a task, they may give up easily (Spicer, 2004). These students often times focus on the obstacles and commonly have low aspirations, motivation, and weak commitment to the goals they choose to pursue. Thus, the low aspiration may result in disappointing academic performances (Margolis & McCabe, 2006). So, in short, every student has his or her own level of self-efficacy in speaking English. Discussion of Students’ Speaking Skill Test Fluency is one of the greatest challenges for all language learners (Pinter, 2006). It means that to speak fluently, the language learners have to think and speak at the same time. Students who obtained the score of 1 on fluency, the student performed long pauses before most words. Generally, when the student was stating his opinion, he always overthought and, as a result, lots of fillers are produced during the speech. Likewise, most of the students obtained the score of 2 on fluency. It describes that the students were speaking with long pauses. The speech was so halting and fragmented. It could be identified from the use of fillers during their speech. Sometimes, the statement was left unfinished. For that matter, students preferred to give simple responses. This might be due to the students’ limited ability to link simple sentence. On the contrary with other students, students who obtained the score of 3 in fluency and coherence performed a quite fluent speech. The students still used some speech fillers as pauses and did a lot of self-correction and repetition. On the lexical resource criterion or vocabulary mastery, students who obtained the score of 1 used simple vocabulary and insufficient for even the simplest conversation. The other students who obtained the score of 2, can be interpreted that the students were able to talk about familiar topic in the simple statement. As a result, their statement could only cover the basic meaning of what they were saying. On the other hand, the errors in word choice were frequently made. As with most of the students obtained the score of 3, it means that the students were able to manage the talk about their hobby but with the limited range of vocabulary. Students were also successful in paraphrasing what they were saying. Even so in some cases, their paraphrasing attempt was unsuccessful. The third criterion was grammatical and accuracy. This criterion dealt with the students’ mastery in using a proper language structure while speaking. Students who obtained the score of 1 on grammar and accuracy, they often produced some basic sentences but with numerous errors. They also relied on the stock phrase or the memorised expressions. Meanwhile, students who got the score of 2 on grammar and accuracy, could be defined that the students were able to produce basic sentences with frequent errors which might lead to
• 10.
  10 misunderstanding. Mostly, thestudents got the score of 3 on grammatical and accuracy. It means that the students’ production on basic sentence form were reasonably accurate. The use of more complex sentence structures was limited and contain constant errors which influenced students’ comprehension and prevented communication. As with most students who obtained the score of 4, was able to produce both simple and complex sentence forms, though some frequent mistakes were made in producing the complex sentence. Finally, students who obtained the score of 4, they were able to produce error-free sentences which could lead to a minimum misunderstanding between the speakers. The last characteristic of IELTS- SQA speaking assessment criterion was pronunciation. Brown (2001) argued that pronunciation was a key to gaining full communicative competence. Students who got the score of 1 on pronunciation was often unintelligible or hardly to understand. It was due to the frequent mispronunciation which could cause some difficulties for the listener. The other students who obtained the score of 2 in pronunciation in general could be understood, but some mispronunciation might reduce the clarity of meaning the students were trying to convey. Otherwise the rest of students gained the score of 3 on pronunciation. They showed some effective use of pronunciation which could help them conveyed the meaning of what they were saying. The listener might find some difficulties because the students’ good ability in pronuncing words was not sustained. Some mispronunciation on individual words could reduce the clarity of meaning at times. Therefore, from the explanation above, it could be concluded that the score in speaking test was slightly different among the students. The score was range from 3 to 4. Nevertheless, most of the students gained the score of 3 in the speaking test while the other students obtained the score of 2 and 4. Discussion of the Correlation of Students’ Self-Efficacy Score and Students’ Speaking Test Score The result of the correlation coefficient of the students’ self-efficacy in speaking English score and the students’ speaking test score (0.65) showed a positive and strong correlation. It means that if the score of self-efficacy is high, then the speaking test score tends to belong in high level as well. Conversely, the lower the student’s self-efficacy score has, the lower the attained speaking skill will be. This is in line with the argument by Tanner (2012) that in the positive correlation, when the value of one variable goes up, the other goes also. This argument is also supported by Kranzler and Moursund (1999) that a positive correlation coefficient indicates that those individuals who scored high on one variable also tended to score high on the other. The positive and strong correlation between the self-efficacy score and the speaking test score could be assumed that the tests provided evidence of validity. Fulcher (2010) argued that this aspect of external validity is criterion-related evidence which shows the scores on two measures are highly correlated. It means that both the self-efficacy in speaking English score and the speaking test were valid. CONCLUSIONS The aims of this study were to find out the correlation of students’ self- efficacy and their speaking skill. The findings and discussions have elaborated the data related to the study. This paper has given an account of the investigation on the correlation between students' self-efficacy in speaking English and their speaking skill. The aims of this research were to figure out: (1) the levels of self-efficacy that the students
• 11.
  11 belong to; and(2) the levels of speaking skill that the students belong to. For the first investigation, the finding has shown that, from 60 participants, 5 students (8.20%) had very high self-efficacy level and 13 students (21.31%) had high self-efficacy level in speaking English. Almost half of the students (42.62%) or 26 students had medium self-efficacy level in speaking English. Meanwhile, there were 14 students (22.95%) who had low self- efficacy and 3 students (4.92%) who had very low self-efficacy in speaking English. For the second investigation, it was found that the implementation of the speaking test had been covered the components of speaking as stated by Harris (1969) in the form of the IELTS- SQA speaking assessment criteria. Regarding the result of speaking test, it showed that the speaking skill level of students were at the scale of 3 to 5. Most students obtained the score of 3. From the result, it could be stated that the students’ proficiency level was adequate and the students were able to communicate successfully. The implication of the speaking test was based on the computation of the correlation coefficient between the students’ self-efficacy in speaking English and their speaking test score, it was found that the correlation was 0,65. It indicated that the correlation was strong and positive. Therefore, this study showed that students’ self-efficacy does has a strong correlation with students’ speaking skill. It means that if the score of self-efficacy is high, then the speaking test score tends to belong in high level as well. Conversely, the lower the student’s self-efficacy score has, the lower the attained speaking skill will be. REFERENCES Azwar, S. (2012). Penyusunan Skala Psikologis. Yogyakarta : Pustaka Pelajar Bandura, A. (1982). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, Vol. 4, pp. 71-81. New York: AcademicPress. Available at: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Ban Ency.html Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman and company Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Rola, J., & Rozsa, S. (2001). The structure of children’s perceived self-Efficacy: A cross- national study. The European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 17, Issue 2, pp. 87– 97. Available at: www. uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura2 001EJPA.pdf Bong, M. (1997). Generality of scademic self-efficacy judgments: Evidence of hierarchical relations. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 4, 696-709. Available at http://bmri.korea.ac.kr/file/board_dat a/ publications/1277275418_1.pdf Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• 12.
  12 Creswell, J.W. (2006).Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Dodds, J. (2011). The correlation between self-efficacy beliefs, language performance, and integration amongst Chinese immigrant newcomers. Unpublished dissertation. Available at www.hamline.edu/WorkArea/Downl oadAsset.aspx?id=2147516352 Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. New Jersey London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Douglas, D. (2010). Understanding language testing. London: Hodder Education ETS. (2012). Examinee handbook: Speaking and writing. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TO EIC/pdf/TOEIC_Speaking_and_Writ ing_Examinee_Handbook.pdf&sa=U &ved=0CBIQFjABahUKEwjEsIPh mf3HAhXGVI4KHVHFAeA&usg= AFQjCNFsr3vxOq85ZfPXu6Qr7gZ 7jtnC1Q Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. London: Hodder Education Halliday, M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold Harris, D. (1969). Testing English as a second language. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hsieh, P. P., & Kuang, H. (2010). Attribution and self-efficacy and their interrelationship in the Korean EFL context language learning, Vol. 60 (3), 606–627. Available at: www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/je sr/article/download/.../1004 IELTS. (2012). Guide for teachers. Retrieved from: www.ielts.org Kranzler, G., & Moursund, J. (1999). Statistics for the terrified. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: Instruction and use of foreign language tests. London: Longman Lane, J., Lane, A., & Kyprianou, A. (2004). Self-efficacy, self-esteem and their impact on academic performance. Social Behaviour and Personality, 32, 247–256. Available at: https://webspace.utexas.edu/neffk/pu bs/scandself-efficacy.pdf Leech, G.& Svartvik, J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and motivation: What to do, what to say.
• 13.
  13 Available at: http://serc.carleton.edu/20538. Nation, I.&Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York: Routledge Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: Taylor & Francis. Available at: www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Pajar es2003RWQ.pdf Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, 543- 578. Available at: www.breakthroughcollaborative.org/ .../bt-research-brief-non-academic- factors.pdf Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press Rahemi, J. (2000). English self-efficacy: Links to English as foreign language achievement. Available at http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/aljarf/Docu ments/English%20Language%20Tea ching%20Conference%20- %20Iran%202008/Jamileh%20Rahe mi.pdf Rahimi , A., & Abedini , A. (2009). The interface between EFL learners’ self-efficacy concerning listening comprehension and listening proficiency. Available at: www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_3_1/rahi mi_abedini.pdf Raoofi, S., Tan, B. H., & Chan, W. (2012). Self-efficacy in second/foreign language learning contexts. English Language Teaching, Vol. 5, No. 11. Available at http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index .php/elt/article/download/20515/134 85 Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Schunk. D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2005). Self-efficacy development in adolescences. Information Age Publishing. Available at http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares /03SchunkMeeceAdoEd5.pdf Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting and self- evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 159–172. Available at: http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/d_sch unk_self_2003.pdf Schunk, D. H. (1996). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychology, vol 26, 207-231. http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/d_sch unk_self_1991.pdf SQA Speaking Criteria for Modern Languages (2013) Sugiyono. (2013). Statistika untuk penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta Susanti, M. (2010). Statistik deskriptif dan induktif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu Tanner, D. (2012). Using statistics to make educational decisions. California: SAGE
• 14.
  14 Thonbury, S. (2007).How to teach speaking. Pearson: Longman. TOEIC Examinee Handbook-Speaking & Writing (2012) Trew, G. (2010). Tactics for TOEIC®: Speaking and writing tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press Underhill, N. (1987). Testing spoken language: A handbook of oral testing techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Van der Bijl, J. J., & Shortridge-Baggett, L. M. (2002). The theory and measurement of the self-efficacy construct. In E. A. Lentz & L. M. Shortridge-Baggett (Eds.),Self- efficacy in nursing: Research and measurement perspectives (pp. 9- 28). New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books ?id=J6ujWyh_4_gC Wang, J., Spencer, K., & Xing, M. (2009). Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language system. Available at: http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/edskas/art icles/SYS2008.pdf Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self- efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 46, No 6. Available at http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/S elf%20Efficacy%20and%20Stress% 20Zajacova%20Lynch%20Espensha de%20Sept%202005.pdf Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, 82–91. Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publicat ion/222529322_SelfEfficacy_An_Es sential_Motive_to_Learn/file/e0b495 23cb10ed47c2.pdf
• 15.
  15