ii ABSTRACT
CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC SELF EFFICACY AND THEIR ENGAGEMENT IN SPEAKING ENGLISH CLASS AT
SMA SUGAR GROUP LAMPUNG TENGAH
By
DESILYA ANGGRAINI
Speaking is the most complex and complicated skill in English learning. That is because this skill employs many aspects; combining pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, and grammar in producing utterance. As that reasons, there are many reasons caused people especially student find difficulties in using English when they are trying to interact with others. Many students avoid taking part in speaking activity. Furthermore, self confidence is one of factors that can give impact to student’s engagement. Besides that, one of aspect might give impact to someone’s confidence in involving in speaking activity is academic self efficacy.
This research is aimed at finding out whether there is significant correlation between students’ academic self efficacy and their engagement in speaking class and analyzing how far students’ academic self efficacy contribute their engagement in speaking class. Sixty one students of SMA Sugar Group Lampung Tengah were selected as sample of this research by using purposive sample. Two kinds of questionnaire were used in this research; they are students’ academic self efficacy questionnaire by Pintrinch and De Groot (1990) and engagement questionnaire by Schreiner and Louis (2006).
iii
is, academic self efficacy as a psychological factor had a positive correlation with students’ engagement in speaking English class. In expert, if a student has good level of academic self efficacy, he/she will have high sense of believe on their capabilities. Then, this sense of believe will affect her/his effort in understanding the lesson and then finally the effort of he/she gave in lesson will affect her/his involvement or engagement in process of learning.
iv
CURRICULUM VITAE
The name of writer is Desilya Anggraini. She was born in Bandar Mataram on
December 12th, 1991 as the first daughter of a happy moslem family Mr. Jumad and Mrs. Rumiyati.
She began her formal education for the first time at TK Gula Putih Mataram in 1996
and graduated in 1998. She continued her study at SDS Gula Putih Mataram, Lampung Tengah and graduated in 2004. Then, she continued her study at SMP Gula Putih Mataram Lampung Tengah and graduated in 2007. After that, she continued her
study at SMA Sugar Group Lampung Tengah and graduated in 2010. In the same year, she was registered as a student of English Education Study Program, in
Language and Art Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Lampung University.
In 2013, in June to September she conducted her Training Practice Program (PPL) as
v
By offering my praise and gratitude to Allah SWT for the abundant blessing to me, I would proudly dedicate this piece of work to:
1. My beloved parents, Jumad and Rumiyati
Thank you so much for your eternal love, supports, attention, and prays. Without all of you I wouldn’t be the way I am now.
2. My beloved grandpa, grandma, uncle and aunt; Bambang Sunarto, Sri Sunarti, Suprapto and Sopiah
Thank you for your pray and support.
3. My beloved younger twins sisters: Sela Nurmalasari and Seli Nurmalawati Your support and your advice make me stronger. Thank you so much and I love you.
4. My beloved fraternity English Education Study Program 2010 Thanks for the best moments I have experienced.
iv
MOTTO
“
If to err and to speak are each uniquely human, then to err at speaking,
or to commit language errors, must mark the very
pinnacle of
human uniqueness.“
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Praise is merely to Allah SWT, the Almighty and Merciful God, for blessing the writer with faith, health, and opportunity to finish this research. This research entitled ―The Correlation between Students‘ Academic Self Efficacy and Their Engagement in Speaking Class at SMA Sugar Group Lampung Tengah‖ is submitted as a compulsory fulfillment of the requirements for S-1 Degree of English Education Study Program in Language and Art Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty at Lampung University.
It is important to be known that this script would never have come into existence without any supports, encouragement, and assistance by several gorgeous persons and institutions, here, the writer would like to address her respect and gratitude to:
1. Prof. Ag. Bambang Setiyadi, M.A., Ph.D. as the first advisor, for his criticism, motivation, and encouragement in encouraging the writer to think more scientifically and critically.
2. Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. as the second advisor for his assistance, ideas, guidance and carefulness in correcting grammatical structure of the writer‘s research, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, and even word by word.
3. Drs. Basturi Hasan, M.Pd. as the examiner, for his innovative ideas to make this script more valuable.
4. Budi Kadaryanto, S.Pd., M.A. as he writer‘s academic advisor.
viii
6. All students in SMA Sugar Group Lampung Tengah academic year 2013/2014 especially X Social, XI Science C, XII Science A, and XII Science D for being cooperative during the research.
7. The writer‘s friends of 2010 English Education Study Program, especially Rizki Amalia A., Fitrivani Amalia R., Tyas Hantia F., Sulistyaningsih, Nurul Aini and Anwar Fadhila. Thank you for your support to finish this script.
8. My great new family during PPL: Sri Wahyuni, Dian Sahri R., Ana Purnama, Cory Frisca, Diah Anisa, Dani Frengky S., Retno Mayasari, Asrul Adipka, Ayu Windarwati, Novrian Erintias H. thank you for great experience with you all.
9. The writer‘s beloved friends: Deka, Ulin, Novan, Nuning, Dwi, Vivit, Ninda, Yogi P., Anis and Eko, and my friends in Asrama Moly; Deni, Yasni, Arini, Nita, Wayan, Hartiani Wibowo, S.H., Widhi Andewi, S.Pd., Yogi F, and Picha.
10.The writer‘s sisters: Sela Nurmalasari and Seli Nurmalawati
11.The writer‘s mother and father for the love, guidance, support, and care.
Last but not the least, the writer truly realizes that this script has not been perfect yet but hopefully, it can give a contribution and be a reference for educational purposes.
Bandar Lampung, September 2014 The writer,
ix 1.1. Background of the Problem ... 1
1.2. Formulation of the Problems ... 5
1.3. Objective of the Research ... 5
2.2. Concept of Self Efficacy ... 13
2.3. Concept of Students‘ Engagement ... 16
2.4. Student Engagement in Speaking English Class ... 24
2.5. Self Efficacy in Linking to Students‘ Engagement ... 26
2.6. Theoritical Assumption ... 30
3.5. Validity and Reliability of Instruments ... 38
x
3.5.2. Reliability of Questionnaire ... 42
3.6. Data Analysis ... 45
3.7. Schedule of Research ... 46
3.8. Hyphothesis Testing ... 46
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Result of the Research ... 48
4.1.1. The Result of Students‘ Academic Self Efficacy ... 48
4.1.2. The Result of Students‘ Engagement in Speaking English Class... 50
4.1.3. The Correlation between Students‘ Academic Self Efficacy and Students‘ Engagement in Speaking English Class ... 52
4.1.4. The Contribution of Students‘ Academic Self Efficacy to Students‘ Engagement in Speaking English Class ... 53
4.1.5. Hypothesis Testing ... 54
4.2. Discussion ... 55
V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1. Conclusion ... 67
5.2. Suggestions ... 69
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Examples of Positive and Negative Engagement ... 23
2. Some Aspects as Result of Self Efficacy Level ... 29
3. Table of Specification the Engaged Learning Index ... 40
4. Table of Specification of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) ... 42
5. Schedule of Research ... 46
6. Academic Self Efficacy ... 49
7. Students‘ Engagement Score (close-ended Question) ... 50
8. Reasons of Student being Engaged and Disengaged in Learning ... 51
9. The Value of Pearson Product Moment Correlation... 53
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
1. Index Keterlibatan dalam Pembelajaran (Engaged Learning Index) ... 71
2.Subskala Self-Efficacy dari Kuesioner Strategi Termotivasi untuk Belajar (Self-Efficacy subscale from MSLQ for Middle and High School students) ... 74
3. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient Table of Critical Values ... 75
4. Analysis Cronbach Alpha Correlation Students‘ Engagement Questionnaire ... 76
5. Manual Calculation of Cronbach Alpha of Self Efficacy Subscale of MSLQ ... 78
6. Analysis Cronbach Alpha Correlation Students‘ Academic Self Efficacy Questionnaire ... 80
7. Score of Students‘ Engagement Questionnaire... 83
8. Score of Students‘ Academic Self Efficacy ... 85
9. Students‘ Academic Self Efficacy and Students‘ Engagement in Speaking English Class Score ... 87
10. Pearson Product Moment Correlation ... 88
11. SPSS Product Moment Correlation ... 91
12. SPSS Regression ... 92
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses certain points: introduction deals with background of the problem, formulation of the problem, objective of the research, uses of the
research, scope of the research, and definition of terms.
1.1.Background of the Problem
English is one of compulsory subjects in Indonesia that should be mastered by students from elementary to college level. In English study, there are four
language skills that should be mastered; they are listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Considering the purpose of English learning is for communication
(Yoosabai, 2009), hence speaking is the most important aspect in English learning. Besides that, Bailey and Savage (1994:7) cited by Lê (2011:1) say that speaking is seen as the center skill and the most demanding of the four skills.
This is basically true because speaking skill has many aspects, such as
pronunciation, fluency, vocabulary, and grammar. It is reasonable that there are many reasons that caused people especially student find difficulties in using English when they are trying to interact with others. They still look hesitate to
interact with their friends and their teachers by using English. In addition Susilawati (2007) cited that in oral discussion, shyness, nervousness, feeling
certain words, and knowing little bit vocabulary are the potential problems that
can hinder the students to speak. It is getting worst by the class environment which does not support the students to speak English frequently. Some students
give bad respond to their friend if they make a mistake; for example some students are afraid to use English in their communication because they are afraid to be laughing by their friends if they doing mistake. This condition makes them
loose their self-confidence to use English. Furthermore, the loose of self confidence directly influent the quality of their engagement in learning process.
Finally, the classroom engagement becomes low.
If it is watched closely actually some of students have good competence in using
English. They can pronounce the word correctly, use English in correct grammatical structure, and comprehend what they speak. However, there are still
some students not actively engaged in speaking English class when they have good competence. It makes the teacher have to push them or her/his students first to make them actively participate or even say one short sentence. This problem
also found by the researcher when following teaching training in the two and half month at SMA Negeri 1 Kebun Tebu Lampung Barat, the researcher found the
same condition that was the students’ engagement in speaking English class was low. They do not actively participate in speaking English activities even asking the teacher to repeat the explanation. They tend to keep silent and avoid using
3
However in the fact, students’ engagement or class engagement is a valuable part
of learning. In many cases, participating in class is an important criterion that teachers use to assign final grades. Students’ engagement is important for the
teacher to create active, creative, meaningful, and fun learning, so the aim of teaching learning can be achieved well. Teaching and learning process cannot run well without engagement and activeness of students. Some problems in
engagement are still encountered by students of Senior High School in speaking English class, one of them is loosing sense of confidance.
As a matter of fact, some studies about factors that hinder the participation of
univeristy students in English speaking lessons have been carried out. Lê Thị Mai (2011:9) study investigation into factors that hinder the participation of univeristy students in English speaking lessons found that students’ personalities factors; like
felt worried, hesitant and not self-confident enough in front of the classmates and teachers make the student avoid taking part in speaking English activity. One of aspect might give impact to someone’s self confidence is self efficacy.
Self efficacy itself refers people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and
execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances (Bandura, 1997:3). Bandura said that self efficacy can bring many influences. They are influences pursued courses of action and decision, influnces the degree
of expended effort, influences the level of perseverance and resiliene to adversity in the face of obstacles, influnces affective states, and influences the degree of
activity especially in the area of one’s control over one’s self, actions and
environment. It can be said that by having self efficacy in range of level people might obtain same level of confidence in line with level of self efficacy.
Therefore it sound logic that people with high self efficacy or can be said to have high level of confidence will give much effort on what they want to achieve.
Because it has been said before that self efficacy gives influences in the degree of expended effort. As the previous research done by Linnenbrik and Pintrich
(2003:119-137), claim that self efficacy is believed to be related to student engagement and learning. This figure displays how self efficacy is related to each
component of engagement.
Considering the explanation above, this research wants to find out the correlation between students’ academic self efficacy and their engagement in speaking
5
reseacher choose SMA Sugar Group Central Lampung as the population of this
research.
1.2.Formulation of the Problems
Based on background of the problem mentioned previously, the researcher formulates the research problems as follow:
1. Is there any significant correlation between students’ academic self efficacy and their engagement in speaking English class?
2. How far does students’ academic self-efficacy contributes their
engagement in English speaking English class in terms of pronunciation,
grammar, vocabulary, and fluency?
3. Which subscale of engagement does among three subscales get the highest percentage?
1.3. Objective of Research
In general, this study is designed to figure out the correlation between students’
academic self efficacy and their engagement in speaking English class. Particularly, the study has some aims as follow:
1. To find out whether there is significant correlation between students’ academic self efficacy and their engagement in speaking English class. 2. To analyze how far students’ academic self efficacy contributes their
engagement in speaking English class.
3. To find out which subscale of engagement among three subscales get the
1.4. Uses of the Research The uses of this research are:
1. Theoretically, the result of this research is expected to verify the previous
theory and to give contribution to the theory of teaching as a reference for the next researcher who will concentrate in increasing students’
engagement in speaking English based on self afficacy theory.
2. Practically, the result of this research can give information to the English teacher to make the classroom a positive learning environment and make
maximum effort to motivite the student not to just passively participate in speaking English class.
1.5. Scope of the Research
This research is a quantitative research which is conducted by administrating two kinds of questionnaire, they are students’ self efficacy questionnaire and students’
engagement questionnaire. These was used to find out how far self efficacy affects students’ engagement in speaking English activity.
The data were collected from the students of SMA Sugar Group Lampung Tengah
as population. SMA Sugar Group is the school which uses English as language for their daily communication. Theoretically, these classes have already studied vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation; for example using target language or
English for asking, answering, giving comment, and stating opinion. It can be said that the students of this school have good competence of speaking because they
7
communication still have problem in engagement during learning activity in
classroom. Therefore, the researcher chose three classes which have the best competence in English from different grade. The researcher wanted to describe
the condition of the academic self-efficacy and the engagement of students who already have good competence in speaking English class at SMA Sugar Group Lampung Tengah.
1.6. Definition of Terms
Some related terms need to be clarified to avoid misinterpretation and misunderstanding in this study. The terms are self efficacy and students’
engagement.
Self efficacy is people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances
(Bandura,1997:3).
Students’ engagement is the quality of effort students themselves devote to educationally purposeful activities that contributes directly to desired outcomes
(Hu and Kuh, 2001:3).
Correlation is statical description for determining relationship between two variables.
As can be clearly seen that this chapter has discussed certain points: (1)
II.LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents the theories used in the research. It covers a number of aspect: concept of speaking, concept of self efficacy, concept of students
engagement, students‘ engagement in speaking English class, self efficacy in linking to students‘ engagement, theoritical assumption, and hypothesis.
2.1.Concept of Speaking
In English learning there are two kind skills that should be mastered by the
students; productive and receptive. Speaking is a productive skill in which the speaker produces and uses language by expressing idea and at the same time he or
she tries to get ideas across. There are two kinds process in speaking; giving message (can be said as encoding process) and understanding the message.
There are several definitions of speaking by several experts; according to Chaney (1988:13) speaking is one of two productive skills in a language teaching besides
listening skill. It is defined as the process of building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal or oral form. Moreover, Nunan (2003:48) defines that
speaking consist of producing systematic verbal utterances to convey meaning. Not only that, Nunan also differentiates speaking from the writing. First, in spoken language, speaking must be listened by others because it has temporary
intermediate feedback for communication directly. Whereas the second, writing or
written language is done as a visual term and the time for doing it, is permanent and it is delayed reception.
Brown (1994: 103) states that speaking is a skill in producing oral language. It is not only an utterance but also a tool of communication. It occurs when two or
more people interact with each other aiming at maintaining social relationship between them. Speaking is also defined as two ways process between speaker and
listener and it involves productive and receptive skill of understanding (Byrne, 1984:9). This definition refers that speaking is process of productive skill of the
speaker in conveying or sending out a message to the listener as the receptor. In this case, the communication needs at least two people, a speaker who produces the message and a listener who receive the message.
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that speaking is process of delivering message or convey thinking, feeling, and idea from the speaker to the
listener in oral form in order to get immediate feedback. In speaking there are five competences to measure the students‘ speaking ability. Brown (1997:4) mentions the five components of testing speaking skill as follows.
1. Fluency
Fluency can be defined as the ability to speak fluently and accurately. Fluency in speaking is the aim of many language learners. Sign of fluency include a reasonably fast speed of speaking and there only a small number
11
one‘ speech is good or not. Someone can speak fluently and accurately
depend on many aspects; they are relevant vocabulary, correct pronunciation, and grammar. Someone can speak fluently and accurately
when they have many vocabularies and know how the word is pronounced. Then, their ability in using grammar in target language will help those two aspects to make good speaking.
2. Pronunciation
Hornby (1974:669) defines pronunciation as the way in which a language
is spoken; way in which a word is pronounced. Thus, pronunciation is the way for the students to produce clearer language when someone speaks. It
deals with phonological aspect that determines how words are sound in a language. Stress and intonation also include in pronunciation aspect. In English, different the way pronounce will lead to different meaning. For example: ―pen‖ and ―pan‖. There is a little bit different pronunciation
between those two words.
pen /pɛn/ pan /pæn/
Stress is the relative emphasis that may be given to certain syllables in a word, or to certain words in a phrase or sentence. For example: ‗enter‘ this
word has stress in the first syllables ′entə. Afterwards, intonation is
variation of spoken pitch that is not used to distinguish words. For
example:
He found it on the street?
3. Vocabulary
Vocabulary is the most important aspect of language because someone
cannot communicate effectively or express her/his ideas both oral and written form if he/she does not know several vocabulary. Hornby (1974:979) defines vocabulary is range of words known or used by
someone. Someone will be easier to express their ideas when they have many vocabularies. For example: if someone wants to talk about weather,
they should know some words related to weather; winter, summer, wind, climate, etc. So, they can use relevant English vocabulary.
4. Grammar
Heaton (1978:5) defines grammar as the student‘s ability to manipulate structure and to distinguish appropriate grammatical form in inappropriate
ones. Grammar gives insight about word order, inflection, and derivation into other meaningful feature in language. It is also needed for students to arrange a correct sentence in conversation. Besides that, grammar will help
students to speak fluently. For example:
Incorrect: The recipes is good for beginning chefs. Correct: The recipes are good for beginning chefs.
5. Comprehension
For oral communication certainly requires a subject to respond to speech as well as to initiate it. Thus, comprehensibility denotes the ability of
13
1991:35). It means that if a person can answer or give respond well and
correctly, it shows that the listener comprehend or understand well.
The score of these five aspects will describe the quality of student‘s speaking ability because many teachers use these five aspects in assessing their students‘
speaking quality. SMA Sugar Group‘s teachers had assessed their students‘ speaking ability and the score show that they have very good speaking ability. So in brief, speaking is an ability to express, share, or deliver idea or message to
other person in order to make the listener understand and interact with others. In this case, the students have shown good ability in speaking by mastering those five elements in their speech. It is proven by the students‘ score given by the
teacher show that the students have good competence in speaking. The scores given the teacher show that the sample of this research or the student speak
fluently, accurately both in grammar and pronunciation, and comprehend what they say.
2.2. Concept of Self Efficacy
In conducting the research, the research uses some theories concerning with self
Many experts make definition of self efficacy. Based on Bandura (1986:391,
1997:3) self efficacy refers to the belief about capabilities to perform behavior at some level and is said self efficacy also a measure of control over individual‘s
thought, feelings and actions. In line with Bandura, Pintrich and Schunk (1996) said that self efficacy is similar to people‘s perception or cognitive judgment of their competence and self concept. It can be said that self efficacy is someone‘s perception about their self or level of belief concerning their ability in finishing a task to achieve their goal.
From the explanation above, that can be said that self efficacy is a someone‘s judgment or system of self-beliefs about her/his ability that enables someone to control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions. Therefore, it will be aimed at someone‘ perception about what they think, believe, and feel which affect how
they behave in facing a problem and finishing a task.
Many literatures state that sense of belief or self efficacy might obtain from some
processes. Bandura (1996:122-161), Wood and Bandura (1989:408) note people‘s belief about their efficacy can be developed by four main sources of influence or
processes. They are:
a. Mastery experiences
Mastery experience, also called enactive mastery, enactive
attainment, or performance attainment, is the most effective way or the most powerful source in creating a strong sense of efficacy. Smith
15
on direct and personal experience and second, mastery is usually attributed to one‘s effort and skill. Successes construct a strong belief in one‘s self efficacy and on the contrary failures tore down it,
especially occur before a sense of efficacy is strongly established. b. Vicarious experience
The vicarious experience is provided by social models. Seeing someone with same ability succeed by effort raises the observers‘
beliefs that they have same capabilities to succeed. Otherwise,
observing someone failed lowers observer‘s judgment of their own efficacy. Getting someone felt similar to model, then the successes and failures‘ model will be more affect self efficacy. Otherwise if
they felt their self different from model, then self efficacy becomes less influenced by model‘s behavior.
c. Social persuasion
People who are verbally persuaded that they have the capabilities to master given activities are possible to mobilize greater effort than if
they have self doubts when problems arise. Persuasive boosts in perceived self efficacy lead people to try hard enough to succeed;
they raise development of skills and sense of self efficacy. d. Emotional state
Physiology state of someone can give information in grading one‘s
ability. If one‘s physiology condition is good or free from any kind of stress or others somatic problem, someone will tend to have high
result of some problems in her/his self. People who have high sense
of efficacy are possible to view their state of affective arousal as an energizing facilitator of performance, whereas those who are
surrounded by self doubts regard their arousal as a debilitator.
In brief, self efficacy is developed by four source of influence; mastery
experience, vicarious experience, social percuation, and emotional state. Someone can increase their own or other‘s sense of self efficacy by providing or using one
of these sources of self efficacy.
2.3.Concept of Students’ Engagement
In now days, teacher give more attention not only on students performance or students achievement but also students‘ participation or students‘ involvement in
learning process. Student‘s engagement is fundamentally important in promoting achievement and retaining students within education. Engagement is more than involvement and participation – it requires feeling and sense – making as well as activity. Acting without feeling engaged is just involvement and feeling engaged without acting is dissociaation.
17
example, Natriello (1984:14) defined student engagement as ―participating in the activities offered as part of the school program‖
On the other hands, negative indicators of engagement in this study included unexcused absences from classes, cheating on tests, and damaging school property. In this overview, this form of engagement is referred to as ―school process engagement‖. The second definition is to focus on more subtle cognitive,
behavioral, and affective indicators of student‘s engagement in specific learning tasks. This orientation is reflected well in the definition offered by Skinner and Belmont (1993:572):
Engagement versus disaffection in school refers to the intensity and emotional quality of children’s involvement in initiating and carrying out learning activities…Children who are engaged show sustained behavioral involvement in learning activities accompanied by a positive emotional tone. They select tasks at the border of their competencies, initiate action when given the opportunity, and exert intense effort and concentration in the implementation of learning tasks; they show generally positive emotions during ongoing action, including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest. The opposite of engagement is disaffection. Disaffected children are passive, do not try hard, and give up easily in the face of challenges…[they can] be bored, depressed, anxious, or even angry about their presence in the classroom; they can be withdrawn from learning opportunities or even rebellious towards teachers and classmates.
Similarly, Hu and Kuh (2001:3) define engagement as ―the quality of effort students themselves devote to educationally purposeful activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes‖. It means that the quality of someone‘s engagement
in education activities contributes to their own achievement of those activities. In this case, the researcher only focuses on students‘ classroom engagement rather
There are many aspects which affect student‘s engagement in the classroom. Based on Gibbs and Poskitt (2010:15-20) there are some factor affected students
engagement.
1.Relationships with teachers and pairs.
In general, the learning environment including relationships and
connectedness to peers, teachers and schools is strongly linked to educational motivation, engagement and attendance that in turn lead to
higher academic achievement (Joselowsky, 2007:267). Because through relationships students learn about their beliefs, their orientations to
learning and the values they need to operate in an academic environment. They also receive help and emotional support in their learning. In speaking, the relationship students will lead them to have good interaction
to the other students and teacher. It will help them when they need some help from teacher or friend, so that they will not hesitate or afraid in seeking help. For example the one who has good relationship with the
other students; if one student hasn‘t understood yet what topic the class is discussed, he/she will directly ask to their friends. On contrary, the one,
who has bad relationship with other students, will keep quite instead of making interaction with other students.
2.Relational Learning
Basically, relational learning relates to peer group and practice that invite both students and teachers to enter into a dialogue about learning. The peer
19
behaviours and that peer groups are often comprised of, and socialize each
other to have, similar characteristics. When students have opportunities to interact and exchange ideas with each other during lessons and to give and receive help‖ (Patrick et al., 2007:85).
3.Dispositions to be a learner
Naturally, dispositions are attitudes acquired through experience that
incline individuals to behave in certain ways. Disposition also refer to the way we would naturally respond to a situation or experience. Dispositions
are created in much the same way that skills are learned, they are able to be influenced or fostered by the learning opportunities teachers and others
(peers and family) provide for students combined with the success students experience.
4.Motivation and interest
Theoretically, motivation is a term frequently used synonymously for engagement although in this report we draw a distinction between engagement and motivation. Motivation is a construct that describes what
compels learners to invest time and effort. Students form beliefs that are subject-matter specific and often based on the perceived usefulness of a
5.Personal agency/cognitive autonomy
Personal agency literally refers to the perceived and actual control one has over the circumstance of learning. The presence of agency is important in
fostering student interest and self-reliance. 6.Self-efficacy
Owing to the idea of competence, literature suggests that students who are
cognitively engaged possess a sense of confidence about themselves as capable learners. This notion is captured in the writing on self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is defined as the ―perceived ability to learn and carry out a task or set of behaviors at an identified, optimal level of performance‖.
Those who have high academic self-efficacy participate more actively in learning, are more diligent, persist more, and complete tasks more successfully than those who have lower self-efficacy. So, self efficacy hold
important role in how much student spend their effort in understanding lesson.
7.Goal orientation
Preferably, the most potent ways to encourage students to become academically self-regulated is to involve them in planning and assessment
related to their own learning. Goals influence the effort students put into learning tasks and direct the focus of future action. They should also be: specific in that they ―direct student‘s attention to relevant behaviors or outcomes‖ and challenging in so far as they ―motivate students to exert effort‖ but are not too unattainable that they impact on self confidence and
21
8.Academic self-regulated
Academic self regulation relates to the degree to which students are motivated to learn, think about their own learning (use meta-cognitive
processes), and proactively make use of self–regulatory processes (strategies and tools) to improve their learning. It is a conscious process and involves selecting from a group of available strategies that include,
among others; goal setting refers to a powerful process for thinking about your ideal future, and for motivating yourself to turn your vision of this
future into reality, time management refers to the act of taking conscious control over the amount of time spent on specific activities, organizational
strategies dealing with organizational studies, an academic field that analyzes organizations and what makes them succeed or fail and also the self-motivational beliefs of self efficacy and intrinsic motivation.
Figure 1. The factors that influence student engagement
on how far self efficacy factor affect students‘ engagement besides other seven
factors.
Meanwhile, there many literatures mention some types of students‘ engagement. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004:62-64) usefully identify three dimensions to student engagement, as discussed below:
1. Behavioural engagement
Theoretically, behavioral engagement concerns with involvement in
learning and academic tasks and includes behaviors such as effort, persistence, asking questions, and contribution to class discussion
(Skinner and Belmont, 1993:572). Students who are behaviourally engaged would typically comply with behavioural norms, such as attendance and involvement, and would demonstrate the absence of
disruptive or negative behaviour. Besides that, behavioral engagement refers to social form of engagement including participation with peers and social interaction to the teacher. Participation with peers as well as
social interaction to the teacher may facilitate learning. The social interaction in the classroom very possible happen asking, answering,
giving comment, and stating opinion about teaching material. Then at the end, it may bring knowledge for all of them.
2. Emotional engagement
Skinner and Belmont (1993:572) say emotional engagement refers to students‘ affective reactions in the classroom including; interest,
23
emotionally would experience affective reactions such as interest,
enjoyment, or a sense of belonging. 3. Cognitive engagement
Basically, cognitive engagement can be defined as the quality of students‘ psychological engagement in academic tasks, including their
interest, ownership and strategies for learning. Metallidou and Viachou
(2007:13) define cognitive engagement as a matter of students‘ will— that is, how students feel about themselves and their work, their skill,
and the strategies they employ to master their work. Cognitively engaged students would be invested in their learning, would seek to go
beyond the requirements, and would relish challenge.
The following table is the example of positive and negative engagement.
Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, and Lehr (200:110) divide engagement into four types: behavioural, academic, cognitive, and psychological. While their categories
model, psychological engagement encompasses similar aspects to Fredricks et al.‘s (2004:62-64) emotional engagement.
It can be concluded that there are three types of engagement; cognitive, behavioral, and emotional or psychological engagement. Therefore engagement is more than just participate, because participation is judt take or have a part while
engagement is occupy the attention or efforts of. By engaging in activity, someone will show three kinds of engagement dimension. In contrast participation is only
involve in one dimesion. This research wants to see those three dimensions of engagement whether positive or negative.
2.4.Student Engagement in Speaking English Class
In many of classes, especially seminars and tutorials, the listener will be expected
not just to listen to the lecturer or tutor, but to do quite a lot of talking as well. They need to be ready to:
1. asking and answering questions from or to the teacher;
Asking and answering question is one of active learning form that has a place within any classroom format. Question asked by the teacher can
involve students more fully in a teacher and leading to deeper understanding of course material. While, questions asked by students are also important in offering opportunity to clarify material and also
25
or do not see quite clearly. However, the problem today is not that the students do not have the answers, but that they do not have the questions because they want to avoid having interaction to the teacher or other
students. Many of them are avoiding asking what they have not understood. Psychologically, the students are afraid of making mistakes in their utterance.
2. asking and answering questions from or to other students;
Asking and answering question among students are also important.
When students asking and answering question among student, there will be an interaction among students moreover a question asked by students can invite them to discuss possible answers with each other before the public discussion. At the end it can make learning environment become good. Therefore, students also can encourage each other to learn by asking questions of one another and their equal desire to learn and understand the class material.
3. making comments and give your own opinion about what the teacher
says or about comments the other students make;
By making comment and giving own opinion will show the level of students‘ critical thinking about course material. Their comment and
opinion can contribute new knowledge and invite other students to classroom discussion
4. summarizing a discussion or an argument;
By summarizing the discussion, it proves that the student put their
effort in understanding the learning material and showing their interest
to the learning activity.
(www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/speaking/participation/1.xml)
Those activities are kind of students‘ paricipation in speaking English class. Those activities are often difficult to be found by the teacher. Even though some students are found actively engaged in learning activity but it is insignificant amount or
even very little amount. In this case, the researcher wants to find out the quality of engagement in speaking English class of students who have good competence in
speaking English.
2.5.Self Efficacy in Linking to Students’ Engagement
Many literature has explained that self efficacy is positive correlated with students‘ engagement. As known students engagement is fundamentally important
in promoting students achievement. Self efficacy is one of factors that can increase students‘ engagement. Therefore, sense of self efficacy someone has on
her/hisself is the key of element in exercising control and personal efficacy. It
affects behaviour in two ways; either they feel confidence in facing tasks they feel competent and confident or avoiding those tasks that they feel contrary. Self
efficacy helps to determine how much effort, perseverance and resilience being put on a task. In other words, the higher the sense of efficacy, the greater the effort, persistence and resilience.
27
intrinsic motivation, strategy use, performance and achievement, and even career
selection. Besides that, the level of self efficacy influence some aspects, they are: a. Academic Challenges
Students who have strong belief in their abilities and capabilities to learn and perform well in school will take more challenging classes and pursue desired degree programs even with obstacles, according to the Carlton
College geoscience department. Rather than avoiding a public speaking class because of fear and uncertainty, a self-efficacious student will take
on the challenge because of his goals and belief that he can succeed. b. Successes and Failures
Successes and failures help for self-efficacy and have influence on it over time. An accomplished high school student is likely to start college with positive beliefs. This may lead to strong class attendance, completion of
homework and adequate test preparation. If the student finds grade success, his level of self-efficacy is reinforced or increased. Single failures likely won't damage the person's belief, but repeated failures could lower
self-efficacy. c. Self-Motivation
Self-efficacious students are usually intrinsically or self-motivated. This means they require less prompting from instructors and peers to get involved. In class, self-motivated students listen intently, take notes,
participate in team activities, ask questions and focus on learning. Additionally, they track down faculty proactively and seek out any support
self-efficacious student believes that if he does a good job on work and tests,
he will get good grades and graduate. d. Perseverance
A key distinction with self-efficacious students is their ability to stay engaged. Many students start college classes with a positive tone and belief in outcomes. The true test comes at the first hint of challenging
work or a low grade. A highly self-efficacious student will more easily overlook a one-time problem and stay engaged. This increases the
potential to learn and earn a good grade. Students lacking in self-efficacy may give up quickly and fall into a pattern of thinking they can't do
anything right or have no control over college success. They often withdraw mentally, and sometimes literally, from classes.
Then in terms of engagement self efficacy may bring influence to form of engagement. As Linnenbrink and Pintrich‘s distribution of student engagement (2003:119-137), below are the influences of self efficacy on three types of
engagement:.
1. Behavioural engagement
It relates to the efforts students are putting into the tasks and how students relate to each other and to the teacher in terms of their willingness to seek help, attendance at the classes etc. In line with
that, some literature says that self efficacy is related to this behavioural engagement in terms of the attendance, effort, and
29
Table 2 Some Aspects as Result of Self Efficacy Level
Aspect High self efficacy Low self efficacy Perseverance in face of
encountering difficulty Asking help Helpless/fear
2. Cognitive engagement
The student who engaged in doing taks doesn‘t mean they engaged in
cognitive. Linnenbrink and Pintrich describe this as students being ‗minds on‘ as well as ‗hands on‘! Strong self-efficacy beliefs will
encourage cognitive Engagement and the one who has it can complete
a task then she/he is likely to engage with appropriate cognitive strategies in order to complete it. Students who doubt their ability to complete a task are less likely to persist in applying cognitive and
metacognitive strategies and will become disengaged if success is not immediate.
3. Motivational engagement
There are three aspect to motivation; student‘s personal interest in the subject, student‘s utility feeling about the subject, and general
importance of the subject to goals or desire. There are links between self efficacy and motivational engagement but there are some
motivational engagement and consequent learning buildstronger self
efficacy just like in the natural feedback process.
Figure 2. A learning loop amended from Linnenbrink and Pintrich(2003)
In brief, self efficacy will affect many aspects. The one who has high self efficacy
will influence his/her academic challenges, success and failure, self-motivation, and perseverance. As an example self-motivation, the one with high self efficacy
will have high motivation especially intrinsic motivation. This motivation will control someone‘s action. In engagement field, it will affect someone to not only
come to the class but she/he can engaged by completing the task, showing her/ his
effort and interest as a motivational engagement.
2.6.Theoritical Assumption
On basis of the previous paragraphs, the researcher assumes that the learners with high self efficacy can highly engage to the activity and task in the classroom.
Because by having high self efficacy, student will control his/her thought, feeling, motivation, effort, and action. As Bandura (1997:3) states self efficacy refer to the
31
by having high self efficacy student will perform good motivation, good effort,
and good action and than finally student will engage to the activity behaviourlly, emotionally, cognitively, and even emotionally. In the class of speaking, student
will not just to listen the teacher but also answer question from the teacher and other students, ask question to the teacher and other students, make comments and give his/her own opinion, involve in discussion, feeling interest, and enjoy the
class.
Thus, the researcher is interested in investigating the correlation between self efficacy and students‘ engagement in speaking English class in SMA Sugar Group
Lampung Tengah.
2.7.Hypothesis
Concerning with the concept and theoretical assumption above, the researcher formulates hypothesis as follow:
―There is significant correlation between student‘ academic self efficacy and students‘ engagement in speaking class in SMA Sugar Group Lampung Tengah.
III. RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter discusses about the methods of research were used in this study, such as: research designs, population and sample, research procedures, research
instrument, validity and reliability of instrument, data analysis, schedule of research, and hypotheses testing.
3.1.Research Design
This is a quantitative study. The design used in this research is ex post facto
design. There is no treatment in this research. Hatch and Farhady (1982:26) states: Ex post facto design is often used when the researcher does not have control over the selection and manipulation of the independent variable. This is why the researcher looks at the type and/or degree of relationship between two variables rather than at a cause-and-effect relationship.
Ex post facto design is as follows:
T
1T
2(Hatch and Farhady, 1982:27)
Note:
T1 : The test of self efficacy
33
The aim of this study were to find out the correlation between students’ academic
self efficacy and their engagement in speaking English class and find out how far students’ academic self-efficacy contributes their engagement in speaking English
class. The score for each student on one test can be correlated with the score on the other, allowing us to see whether those students who score high on one test also score high on the other.
The data of this study were students’ self efficacy and students’ engagement in
speaking English class. Self efficacy is one of the language attitudes symbolized as ‘X’ variable that was scored by using Self-Efficacy subscale from the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) for Middle and High School students developed by Pintrinch and De Groot (1990) and the result was self efficacy data. Students’ engagement is one of aspect in someone
successfulness factor and the result was students’ engagement score, symbolized as ‘Y’. The researcher used the Engaged Learning Index developed by Laurie A.
Schreiner and Michelle C. Louis (2006).
To find the coefficient of correlation between self efficacy and students’
engagement, the researcher used Pearson Product Moment Correlation, while for
3.2.Population and Sample 3.2.1.Population
The population of this research was students of SMA Sugar Group Lampung
Tengah in 2013/2014 academic year. Totally there were 17 classes with the total number 380 students. There were six classes for grade X with the total number 148 students; five classes X IPA and one X IPS. For grade XI there
were six classes with the total number 130 students; five classes XI IPA and one XI IPS. The last for grade XII there were five classes with the total
number 102 students; four classes XII IPA and one XII IPS.
3.2.2. Sample
The sample was taken through purposive sampling with the purpose of that individual or selected cases may represent a case that could answer the
problem. The determination of the individual or the case was based on theoretical knowledge possessed by the researcher. The researcher took the class with high competency in speaking English because the write wanted to
find out the level of good learners’ self efficacy and the correlation with their engagement. Good learners surely had good self efficacy in other words high
self efficacy. By taking the class with high competency, the researcher wanted to find out whether their high self efficacy has relationship with their engagement in class or not because many literature say that the level of self
35
3.3.Research Procedures
In conducting the research, the research procedure used these following steps:
1. Stating research problems 2. Determining the objectives
The objectives of the research are:
a. To find out whether there is significant correlation between students’ academic self efficacy and their engagement in speaking
English class.
b. To analyze how far students’ academic self efficacy contributes
their engagement in speaking class. 3. Determining the sample population
The researcher took one class each grade from SMA Sugar Group
Lampung Tengah as the sample in this study. There were 17 classes and the total of population is 380 students. The researcher took three classes which were one class from each grade to be chosen as sample by using
purposive sampling.
4. Constructing research instrument
a. Test of self efficacy
Self efficacy questionnaire was taken from Pintrinch and De Groot (1990) in which the score were based on the Likert Scale and the
range of 1 to 7.
Students’ engagement questionnaire used in this research is
Engaged Learning Index developed by Laurie A. Schreiner and Michelle C. Louis (2006) in which the score were based on the
Likert Scale and the range of 1-5 5. Administrating self efficacy test
The researcher gave a questionnaire of self efficacy to the students.
6. Administrating students’ engagement test
The researcher gave a questionnaire of students’ engagement to the
students.
7. Collecting the data
After administrating the tests, the data from both tests was collected. 8. Analyzing the data
The data was analyzed by using Pearson Product Moment Correlation
which was computed using SPSS to investigate whether there was any significant correlation or not.
3.4.Research Instruments
In collecting the data, the researcher used two kinds of questionnaire as the
instrument. Those two kinds of questionnaire were to score self academic and students’ engagement in speaking class.
37
distributes students’ engagement questionnaire to students in order to score students’ engagement in speaking class.
1. Self Efficacy Questionnaire
There were two kinds of questionnaire in this research as the instrument. The first questionnaire was used to get the data about students’ self efficacy. This method was effective to measures the aspects or variables concerning with
behavioral or psychological or sociological aspects.
This questionnaire was including in ended questionnaire. Closed-ended means the option are provided and there are no other alternatives. Closed-ended questionnaire is used to help the researcher in selecting the
data, so that the research will not have to waste the time for the data which are not relevant to the research problem.
A set of the self efficacy questionnaire was taken from Pintrinch and De
Groot (1990) in which the score were based on the Likert Scale and the range of 1 to 7 for the positive statements and the range of 7 to 1 for the negative statements. The last scores were taken from the total answers given so that the
high and low score showed the self efficacy range. The questionnaire was translated into Bahasa Indonesia to help the student in filling out the
2. Students’ Engagement Questionnaire
While for collecting data students’ engagement the researcher used a set of
questionnaire which was consist of two types; Close-ended and Open-ended
questionnaire. For the Close-ended, the researcher used Engaged Learning Index developed by Laurie A. Schreiner and Michelle C. Louis (2006). The
questionnaire was scored based on the Likert Scale and the range of 1 to 5 for the positive statements and the range of 5 to 1 for the negative statements.
The last scores were taken from the total answers given so that the high and low score showed the students’ engagement range. The questionnaire was
translated into Bahasa Indonesia, in order to ease the students’ difficulty when they answered the questionnaire. Besides that, the Open-ended questionnaire was used to find out the reasons why they were being engaged
in learning.
3.5.Validity and Reliability of the Instrument 3.5.1. Validity of Questionnaire
Validity is important to find out the validity of instrument. According to
Hatch and Farhady (1982: 250), validity is the extent to which an instrument really measures the objective to be measured and suitable with the criteria.
According to Hatch and Farhady (1982: 281) there are three basic types of validity; content, construct and face validity. In this research, the researcher
used content validity and construct validity to measure whether the test has good validity or not.
39
It is extent to which the test measures a representative sample of the
subject matter content and not simply on the appearance of the test (Hatch and Farhady, 1982:251). To get content validity of the test, the
researcher adopted the questionnaire which measured three types of student’s engagement and motivation and learning strategies. Besides
that, the researcher measured the content validity using inter-rater
reliability that needs some evaluators as a team and done before collecting the data (Setiyadi, 2006:26).
b. Construct Validity
Construct validity is concerned with whether the test is actually in line with theory of what it means to know the language that is being measured, it will be examined whether the test questions actually
reflect what it means to know a language. According to Heaton (1991:161) states that construct validity is capable of measuring certain specific characteristics in accordance with a theory of language
behavior and learning and it assumes the existence of certain learning theories underlying the acquisition of abilities and skills. Besides that,
we can measure the construct validity using inter-rater reliability that needs some evaluators as a team and done before collecting the data (Setiyadi, 2006:26).
For engagement questionnaire, engaged learning was thus
physical and psychological energy. Comprised of affective,
behavioral, and cognitive components (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, and Paris, 2004:62-64), they theorize that engaged learning could be
measured globally but also could be measured in specific local instances, such as within a particular class session. The researcher specified them in the table of specification to make sure that the items
of test were good in the term of construct validity.
Table 3. Table of specification the Engaged Learning Index
NO Factor Number of items Persentage
1. Meaningful Processing broad categories: (1) a motivation section (motivational beliefs scale) and (2) a learning strategies section (self regulated scale). According
to the MSLQ Manual:
41
in a course, and their anxiety about tests in a course. The learning
strategy section includes 31 items regarding students' use of different cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In addition, the learning
strategies section includes 19 items concerning student management of different resources. (Pintrich et al., 1991: 5)
Pintrich and De Groot (1990) say the MSLQ can be used either in its entirety or its subscales and has most frequently been applied
to evaluate the motivational and cognitive effects educational programs have on students. The instrument is completely modular,
and thus the scales can be used together or individually, depending on
the needs of the researcher, instructor, or student. However in this
research, the reasercher only used a shortened form of MSLQ that was Self-Efficacy subscale from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) for Middle and High School students
developed by Pintrinch and De Groot (1990) which was consists of eight (8) statements from 81 statements.
Table 4. Table of Specification of MSLQ
11.Metacognitive Self-Regulation 33r, 36, 41, 44, 54, 55, 56, 57r, 61, 76, 78, 79
Reliability is measure of accuracy, consistency, dependability or fairness of
43
good test, if the tests are given to the same person in other time without any
treatment or language learning then it produce different significance result it is no where reliable.
A. Reliability of Students’ Academic Self Efficacy Questionnaire
The researcher used Self-Efficacy subscale from the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) for Middle and High School students developed by Pintrinch and De Groot (1990) and to find out the test was
reliable or not, the researcher used Cronbach Alpha. Every item in self efficacy questionnaire was analyzed to make sure that the items consist of
good unity. The researcher used Cronbach Alpha that was measured based on the average of the questions correlation. Self efficacy score was made up of 8 items rated on a 7-point Likert type scale, from seven to one (for the positive
statements) and from one to seven (for the negative statements).
From the calculation of reliabilty analysis of questionnaire, tha alpha is 0.780.
it means that the questionnaire has high reliability. It can be interpreted that the questionnaire is proper to be used for a research. The analysis of each
item showed that if the item deleted, it will make alpha lower. For example, item 1 (see Appendix 4), the alpha is 0.592. It means that, if item 1 is deleted, alpha of the whole items will be lower than 0.780. The higher the alpha is, the
Another example, on item 17 the alpha is 0.016. Alpha of this item (0.016)
did not make the alpha of coefficient reliability (0.780) increased if this item is deleted. With alpha 0.780, the researcher reported that the questionnaire
has high reliability and is reliable to be administered.
B. Reliability of Students’ Engagement Questionnaire
The researcher used a set of Engaged Learning Index developed by Laurie A. Schreiner and Michelle C. Louis (2006), and to find out the test was reliable
or not, the researcher used Cronbach Alpha. Students’ engagement was made up of 20 items rated on a 5-point Likert type scale, from five to one (for the
positive statements) and from one to five (for the negative statements).
From the calculation of reliabilty analysis of questionnaire, tha alpha is 0.739.
It means that the questionnaire has high reliability. It can be interpreted that the questionnaire is proper to be used for a research. The analysis of each item showed that if the item deleted, it will make alpha lower. For example,
item 5 (see Appendix 5), the alpha is 0.873. It means that, if item 1 is deleted, alpha of the whole items will be lower than 0.739. The higher the alpha is, the
better the questionnaire is.
Another example, on item 8 the alpha is 0.169. Alpha of this item (0.169) did
not make the alpha of coefficient reliability (0.739) increased if this item is deleted. With alpha 0.739, the researcher reported that the questionnaire has
45
3.6.Data Analysis
This research has two variables, dependent and independent. Since, this research
was correlation study, in collecting the data the researcher only used two kinds of questionnaire for those variables. They were self efficacy questionnaire and students’ engagement questionnaire. The researcher classified the self efficacy as independent variable because theoretically, self efficacy influences the students’
engagement. The data from students’ engagement was classified as dependent
variable because the aspect was influenced by self efficacy.
After analyzing the result of students’ academic self efficacy, the researcher
correlated it with the result of students’ engagement in order to determine whether
there is correlation or not by using Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The data
were analyzed both by using SPSS and manual as follow:
�
=
�
(
)
−
(
)(
)
�
2−
(
)
2�
2−
(
)
2(Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 198) Note:
r : the coefficient correlation x : self efficacy score
y : students’ engagement score ∑x : the sum of score in X-distribution ∑y : the sum of score in Y-distribution
∑xy : the sum of products of paired X and Y distribution ∑x2
