STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY IN SPEAKING ENGLISH :A Study of Students’ Self-Efficacy in A Senior High School in Bandung.

(1)

Michelle Anggia, 2013

Students Self-Efficacy In Speaking English (A Study of Students Self-Efficacy In A Senior High School In Bandung)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY IN SPEAKING ENGLISH

(A Study of Students’ Self-Efficacy in A Senior High School in Bandung)

A Research Paper

Submitted to English Education Department as a partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the Sarjana Pendidikan degree

By:

Michelle Anggia

0807321

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

Oleh Michelle Anggia

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Oktober 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

PAGE OF APPROVAL

(A Study of Students’ Self-Efficacy in A Senior High School in Bandung)

A Research Paper

By

Michelle Anggia

0807321

Approved by:

Main Supervisor, Co-Supervisor,

Prof. Dr. Didi Suherdi, M.Ed. Iyen Nurlaelawati, S.Pd., M.Pd. NIP. 196211011987121001 NIP. 197709062009122002

Head of English Education Department Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

(4)

iii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to find out the students’ self-efficacy level in

speaking English and to investigate the factors influencing the students’ self

-efficacy. This study involved sixty one students of eleventh grade in a senior

high school in Bandung. In this study, the data were gathered in two ways,

namely the questionnaire and interviews. The questionnaire, adapted from Bandura’s “children's perceived academic self-efficacy questionnaire” (2001), was used to determine the levels of the students’ self-efficacy in speaking

English, namely very high, high, medium, low, and very low self-efficacy. It

was followed by an interview to ten students of those different levels of

self-efficacy in order to see the factors influencing their self-self-efficacy level.. The

analysis of the data was done within the theoretical frameworks of self-efficacy by Bandura (1982) and the theory of factors affecting students’ self-efficacy by Schunk and Meece (2005).

The findings indicated that five students (8.20%) had very high

self-efficacy and thirteen students (21.31%) had high self-self-efficacy in speaking

English. Almost half of the participants (42.62%) had medium self-efficacy

belief in their speaking ability in English. Meanwhile, there were fourteen

students (22.95%) who had low self-efficacy and three students (4.92%) who

had very low self-efficacy in speaking English. Families and peer networks were revealed as the influencing factors to increase students’ self-efficacy in speaking English. This study is recommended for teachers and parents, so that they can take advantages of this study to improve the students’ confidence and self-belief to speak English.

Key words : Self-efficacy, speaking, English subject, family, peer

(5)

iii

ABSTRAK

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui tingkat rasa berdaya

siswa dalam berbicara bahasa Inggris dan menginvestigasi faktor-faktor yang

mempengaruhi rasa berdaya siswa. Penelitian ini melibatkan enam puluh satu

siswa dari kelas sebelas disebuah sekolah menengah pertama di Bandung. Ada

dua cara yang digunakan dalam pengumpulan data, yaitu melalui kuesioner dan

interview. Quesioner yang diadaptasi dari Bandura “children's perceived

academic self-efficacy questionnaire” (2001) digunakan untuk menentukan

tingkat rasa berdaya siswa dalam berbicara bahasa Inggris, yaitu sangat tinggi,

tinggi, sedang, rendah dan sangat rendah. Lalu proses ini diikuti dengan

interview kepada sepuluh siswa dari tingkat rasa berdaya yang berbeda-beda

untuk melihat faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi tingkat rasa berdaya mereka.

Analisa data menggunakan kerangka teori tentang rasa berdaya oleh Bandura

(1982) dan teori tentang faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi rasa berdaya siswa

oleh Schunk dan Meece (2005).

Penemuan menunjukkan bahwa lima siswa (8.20%) memiliki rasa

berdaya yang sangat tinggi, dan tiga belas siswa (21.31%) memiliki rasa berdaya

yang tinggi terhadap berbicara bahasa Inggris. Hampir setengah dari seluruh

peserta (42.62%) atau setara dengan dua puluh enam siswa memiliki tingkat rasa

berdaya yang sedang terhadap kemampuan mereka dalam berbicara bahasa

Inggris. Sementara itu, ada empat belas siswa (22.95%) yang memiliki rasa

berdaya yang rendah, dan tiga siswa yang memiliki rasa berdaya yang sangat

rendah dalam berbicara bahasa Inggris. Keluarga dan teman diakui sebagai

(6)

iii

dalam berbicara bahasa Inggris. Penelitian ini direkomendasikan untuk para

guru dan orangtua agar mereka dapat mengambil keuntungan untuk

meningkatkan rasa percaya terhadap diri siswa untuk berbicara bahasa Inggris.

Kata Kunci : Rasa Berdaya Diri, berbicara, Mata Pelajaran Bahasa

(7)

iv Michelle Anggia, 2013

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... i

ABSTRACT ... iii

TABLE OF CONTENT ... iv

LIST OF TABLES ... vii

LIST OF CHARTS……….viii

LIST OF FIGURES ... .ix

LIST OF APPENDICES……….……...x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Research Questions ... 3

1.3 Aims of the Study ... 3

1.4 Scope of the Study ... 4

1.5 Significance of the Study ... 4

1.6 Clarification of Terms ... 5

1.7 Organization of the Paper... 6

(8)

v Michelle Anggia, 2013

2.1 Speaking ... 7

2.2 Self-Efficacy ... 10

2.2.1 The definition of self-efficacy ... 10

2.2.2 Self-efficacy in academic context ... 12

2.2.3 The sources of self-efficacy ... 14

2.2.4 The factors influencing the level of self-efficacy ... 15

2.3 The Influence of Self-Efficacy in Speaking English ... 19

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Statements of Problems ... 21

3.2 Research Design ... 21

3.3 Site and Respondent ... 23

3.4 Data Collection... 23

3.4.1 Questionnaire ... 23

3.4.2 Interviews ... 24

3.5 Trying out the Instrument... 25

3.5.1 Validity of the instrument ... 25

3.5.2 Reliability of the instrument... 26

3.6 Ordinal Category ... 28

(9)

vi Michelle Anggia, 2013

3.7.1 Questionnaire ... 29

3.7.2 Interviews ... 30

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Findings and Discussion of the Students’ Self-Efficacy levels in Speaking

English ... 31

4.1.1 Finding ... 31

4.1.2 Discussion ... 33

4.2 Findings and Discussion of the Factors Influencing Students’ Self-Efficacy in

Speaking English ... 36

4.2.1 Finding ... 36

4.2.2 Discussion ... 47

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions ... 55

5.2 Suggestions ... 56

REFERENCES

(10)

vii Michelle Anggia, 2013

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Appendix A : The Results of Self-efficacy Questionnaire

Appendix B : Students’ Self-efficacy level in Speaking English

Appendix C : Interview Guidelines

Appendix D : Interview Transcriptions

Appendix E : The Factors Influencing Self-efficacy

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 The result of validity test on students’ self-efficacy ... 26

Table 3.2 The result of reliability test of students’ self-efficacy ... 27

Table 3.3 Ordinal category formula in normal distribution data ... 28

Table 4.1 The validity of students’ self-efficacy score in speaking English ... 32

(11)

viii Michelle Anggia, 2013

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 4.1 The percentage of students’ self-efficacy in speaking English ... 34

(12)

ix Michelle Anggia, 2013

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu LIST OF FIGURES

(13)

x Michelle Anggia, 2013

(14)

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the introduction of the study. It elaborates the

background of the study, research questions, aims of the study, scope of the study,

significance of the study, clarification of the terms, and organization of the paper.

1.1. Background of the Study

People tend to have different drives to speak English. There are

encouragements and barriers that make people want to express their ideas in

English. Particularly in Indonesia where English is learned as a foreign language,

people do not commonly communicate with English in the community. Some

people may feel hesitant to speak English in front of other people who do not use

it. On the other hand, some others have their own encouragement, so they are

willing to speak English. The same issues are arising in English language learning

at non-speaking English schools, where most learners often seem passive and

reticent in speaking English in the classroom (Hamouda, 2012).

In connection with the issue above, some experts argue that there are diverse

factors that influence students to speak English. Dörnyei (2005) and Riasati

(2012) indicate some factors that might encourage learners to speak English such

as students‟ motivation, personality, content and context, as well as learners‟

beliefs on their communication competence. On the other hand, Hamouda (2012)

highlights some causes that make students feel reluctant to speak English as a

foreign language, namely anxiety, lack of interest in English class,

(15)

2

Students‟ beliefs on their capability either positively or negatively influence

their willingness to speak. For that reason, this study intentionally highlights students‟ beliefs on students‟ speaking skill in English, since one of the significant factors to control over students to speak English is their self-efficacy or what so

called as self-belief (Bandura, 1977; Mahyuddin, Elias, Cheong, Muhamas,

Noordin, & Abdullah, 2006).

Self-efficacy is referred to individual‟s beliefs in his capabilities, and it

gives effect to the efforts he puts to achieve desirable performance. As defined by

Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is “the belief in one‟s capabilities to organize and

execute the courses of actions to attain designated type of performance”. In other

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

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

competently (Dörnyei, 2005). It is believed that self-efficacy can determine how

people feel, think, and behave, as well as the choices they make in specific

situation (Bandura, 1994). Thus, the beliefs that students hold about their ability

in speaking English can either encourage or make them hesitate to speak English

in front of others in the classroom.

Dodds (2011) conducted a correlation study on self-efficacy and language

performance among Chinese immigrant newcomers in Canada. She found that

there was significant positive correlation between English-speaking self-efficacy

beliefs and English speaking performance among the participants. It is stated 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.

However, Idrus and Salleh (2007) state that study relates to students‟ self

-efficacy with regard to speaking English skill remains under-discussed, especially in Asia. Many studies that have been done on self-efficacy in second and foreign

(16)

3

& Swartz, 1993). Hence, it is interesting to see the application of self-efficacy

concept in speaking English in Indonesian context. Moreover, this study is

essential in order to provide students and English teachers with an alternative idea

on how to enhance students‟ beliefs on their speaking ability, and boost their

speaking performance in the classroom.

Based on the explanation above, this study is purposed to find out students‟

self-efficacy level in speaking English and to figure out the factors influencing

their self-efficacy level. The participants of this study were 61 students of

eleventh grade from a senior high school in Bandung.

1.2. Research Questions

This study is designed to answer the following questions.

1. To what level of self-efficacy do the students belong?

2. What are the factors influencing the students‟ self-efficacy in speaking

English?

1.3. Aims of the Study

This study is aimed to:

1. Find out the level of self-efficacy that the students belong to

2. Figure out the factors influencing students‟ self-efficacy in speaking

(17)

4

1.4. Scope of the Study

The scope of the study is narrowed down into two limitations, since the

topic about self-efficacy is too wide. First, categorizing self-efficacy level that the

students possessed in speaking English, and second, figuring out the factors affecting students‟ self-efficacy in speaking English. On the other hand, the theories of self-efficacy by Bandura (1982) and theory of factors affecting students‟ self-efficacy by Schunk and Meece (2005) is mostly used as the main logical frames in seeking students‟ self-efficacy level in English speaking skill and factors affecting students‟ self-efficacy level.

1.5. Significance of the Study

This present study tries to analyze the issue of students‟ self-efficacy in

speaking English based on the theory of self-efficacy by Bandura (1982) and

factors influencing adolescents‟ self-efficacy by Schunk and Meece (2005). This

study is hopefully able to give new insights on filling the gaps in theories giving reasonable arguments that students‟ self-efficacy level can be very various. Furthermore, the factors that influence students‟ self-efficacy can be very

difference to each student. The result of this study is expected to give knowledge,

example, and reflections for further research to be carried out and for any

educational practices related to students‟ self-efficacy in speaking English. Since

(18)

5

this study becomes interesting to conduct, especially in Indonesian context where

English is learned as a foreign language. It is hoped to enrich the literature studies on students‟ self-efficacy in English subject.

1.6. Clarification of Terms

In order to avoid misunderstanding, the following terms are defined as

follow.

Students’ Self-Efficacy

According to Bandura (1982), „Students‟ self-efficacy refers to students‟

beliefs of their performance capabilities to organize and execute particular type of

tasks at a particular time and closely linked to expectations to produce success outcome‟. He argues that students who believe they are learning a useful strategy experience have greater control over learning achievement and self-efficacy for

their skill improvement. This term will be elaborated in chapter two.

EFL (English as a Foreign Language)

According to Troike (2006:4), English as a foreign language is not widely

used by learners for immediate social context, for instance, people learn and use

the English language for future travel or other cross-cultural communication

situations.

(19)

6

Brown (2001) defines speaking as a productive skill in communicative

competence besides writing, listening and reading skills. He further says that it is „an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and

receiving and processing information‟. Besides, Harmer (2007) notes down that

from the communicative point of view, speaking has many different aspects and

categories such as; accuracy, involving the correct use of vocabulary, grammar

and pronunciation practiced through controlled and guided activities; and,

fluency, considered to be „the ability to keep going when speaking

spontaneously‟.

1.7 Organization of the paper

This paper consists of five chapters. Each chapter is subdivided into

subtopics that will give further elaboration of the investigated issues.

Chapter I is the introduction of the paper. It contains the background of the

study, reasons for choosing the topic, the research question, aim of the study, the

significance of the study, and the organization of the paper.

Chapter II is the theoretical foundation covering the conceptualizing of

speaking and self-efficacy, the definition of self-efficacy, self-efficacy in

academic context, the sources of self-efficacy, the factors influencing the level of

self-efficacy, and the Influence of Self-Efficacy in Speaking English.

Chapter III is the research methodology. In this chapter, research design,

research setting, research participants, data collection, and data analysis will be

(20)

7

Chapter IV will talk about the findings and the discussion of the study.

Here, the findings and the discussion of data obtained from the research will be

comprehensively investigated and elaborated.

Chapter V is the conclusion and suggestions of the research where the

research conclusion is delivered along with the appropriate suggestions needed for

(21)

21

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the procedure of the research in order to find the

answers of the two questions stated in Chapter One. It covers the statements of the

problems, research design, site and respondent, data collection, and data analysis.

3.1 Statements of Problems

This paper seeks to address the following questions.

1. To what level of self-efficacy do the students belong?

2. What are the factors influencing the students‟ self-efficacy in speaking

English?

3.2. Research Design

This current study applied mixed method research in order to find out the

students‟ self-efficacy level in speaking English and the factors influencing the

self-efficacy level. Creswell (2003) explains that mixed method involves both

collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. He defines it as the

sequentially collection or analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data in a

single study, which involves the integration of the data in the process of the

research (Creswell, Clark, Gutmann, Petska & Hanson, 2007).

The first research question was aimed to find the level of the students‟

self-efficacy in speaking English. Questionnaire was chosen as the instrument to find

out the self-efficacy level of 61 participants. A seven-point likert scale was

applied on it, and the results were analyzed by using IBM SPSS 20.0 in order to

(22)

22

quantitative analysis was considered appropriate to count and interpret the data

from the survey.

On the other hand, the second research question was aimed to find the factors influencing students‟ self-efficacy level. One of the ways to identify the factors is by administering an interview. It was conducted once to each of the

participants who had been chosen based on their self-efficacy level. Since the

interview was the main source of the data in this research question, a qualitative

analysis was needed to interpret and describe the data from the interview

transcription.

Seeing the description above, a mixed method research was employed

because it helped the collection and analysis of both data needed for the research.

The following is the figure of the process of mixing the data.

Figure 3.1 Creswell’s process of mixing mixed data (2010)

The advantage of applying mixed method is on the result of mixing the data,

and its function to the study. By mixing the datasets, it provides a better understanding of the problem than if either dataset had been used alone (Creswell, 2006). Brewer and Hunter (1989) state that when both quantitative and qualitative

data are included in a study, the data gained will make the result even richer than

(23)

23

comprehensive results in a research than either only quantitative or qualitative

study.

3.3 Site and Respondents

This study was conducted in a senior high school in Bandung. The site was

chosen due to two reasons; first, this school was open for research that it gave an

access to do the research. Second, this school was categorized as the first cluster

school in Bandung. Thus, it was very challenging to see the students‟ self-efficacy

in speaking English found here. The data were taken from two classes of eleventh

grader. The total respondents of this research were 61 students from both classes.

3.4. Data Collection

In mixed method research, surveys and interviews are commonly combined

together (Creswell, 2006). In this study, a survey was employed through the

questionnaire, and then an interview was conducted to the participants. In this

way, the data were gained through multiple data collection techniques, and each

technique would be described thoroughly below.

3.4.1.Questionnaire

Questionnaire is best used (also sometimes called a survey, checklist or

schedule) when the responses are from many participants. It is also important to

obtain sighted information from the participants. In accordance to the data needed,

Dörnyei (2003, cited in Burns, 2010) notes that questionnaires can get you three

types of information; factual or demographic (who the interviewees are and their

background/experiences), behavioural (what they do, or did in the past) and

(24)

24

questionnaire was expected to present the factual and attitudinal data, which

represented the depiction of students‟ self-efficacy level in speaking English.

A closed-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 (see Appendix A). It is in Likert scale form and

categorized as subject-completed instrument (Creswell, 2006). The scale was

ranged range from 1 (Very Poor) to 7 (Very Good). The participants were asked

to put a checklist on the box with a number that best represented their estimation

of their English speaking skill. The ranges self-efficacy levels of self-efficacy

were taken from the students‟ total score of all items which were proceed by using

ordinal category formula (see Table 3.3). Since this study includes ordinal

category formula, the formula directly divides the scores into five ranges, namely

very high efficacy, high efficacy, medium efficacy, low

self-efficacy, and very low self-efficacy. It will be explained further in ordinal

category (see Table 3.3 Ordinal Category).

3.4.2.Interview

Interview is a useful way in a study to conduct a conversation that explores

information needed. Burgess (1984:102, cited in Burns, 2010) describes interview as “a conversation with a purpose”. It reveals information, which does not appear in the other instruments, and, therefore, it gains participants‟ perspective more

deeply (Hatch, 2005). The number of participants chosen for the interview will

depend on the time availability, since interviews can be more time consuming

(25)

25

In order to acquire deeper information on the participants‟ views, semi

-structured interview was employed in this research. According to Burns (2010),

this type of interview is not only structured and organized, but also more open and

flexible. It was conducted to 10 students from five levels of self-efficacy. From

very high self-efficacy to very low self-efficacy towards speaking English. Each

level was represented by two students. The interview was conducted twice, five

participants on Monday, September 10th 2012 and five more on Thursday, 13th

2012. The participants were asked 29 questions based on the three main factors

influencing self-efficacy level as described in Chapter II (see Appendix C).

The students were interviewed one by one in a closed room, as Emilia

(2005:81) states that individual interviews are intended to allow for greater depth. The languages used during the interview were Indonesian and English. Some

students preferred to have the interview in English, and some others preferred in

Indonesian. A tape recorder was used to record the interview, and the document of

interview were then transcribed (Emilia, 2005).

3.5. Trying Out the Instrument

The purpose of trying out the instrument is to make sure that the items are

valid and reliable before it is administered to the participants. As Sugiyono (2002)

explains, the valid and reliable instrument in collecting data will result in the valid

and reliable data of the research. The try-out was administered to 30 students of

eleventh grade, and the results were analyzed by using IBM SPSS 20.0. Each step

will be further explained as follow.

3.5.1. Validity of the instrument

By finding out the validity of the instrument, it gives benefit for the study

before taking further action. An invalid instrument can lead to misunderstanding,

(26)

26

says that it wastes away if the questionnaire is too long for the respondent to

complete and it could be time consuming and possibly not easily understandable

by the respondent. Thus, it leads to invalid data.

Validity is the degree to which a test measures what is supposed to be

measured. Therefore, „a questionnaire should measure what is supposed to be

measured‟ (Umar, 2002). In order to check the validity of the instrument, a

correlation technique is mostly used (Masrun, 1979). He explains the item, which

has positive and high correlation with the total score, is the item that has high

validity. Here are the steps to measure the instrument validation:

1) If r-result is bigger than r-table (r-result > r-table), so the item is valid. But

the item will be considered as invalid if--if the correlation between the item

and r result is less than r table (r-result < r-table).

2) Comparing r-result with r-table (0.252).

3) Concluding the comparison.

(Sugiyono, 2011)

Based on the results of the questionnaire, all of the r-result from each question is

bigger than the r-table (0.252). The r-result is bigger than r-table (see Table 3.1),

so the questionnaire was considered as a valid instrument.

Table 3.1

The result of validity test on students’ self-efficacy in speaking English

Items of questions r-result r-table Ket

(27)

27

SE 10 0.707 0.252 Valid

Reliability is defined as the extent to which a test procedures consistent to

the results when it is administered under a similar condition (Hatch & Fahardy,

1982). Testing the reliability of the instruments is intended for convincing that the

instrument will yield the same results even thought carried out in different classes.

One of the methods to check the reliability of an instrument is Alpha-Cronbach

method (Budi, 2006). The formula is:

(28)

28

In this method, the r result is shown as alpha, and if the alpha is more than

the criterion (0.06), as well as having positive value, the instrument is reliable.

Based on the reliability test, it was found that the Cronbach‟s alpha of the data fell

at 0,953 (see Table 3.2). The alpha (0,953) was bigger than the criterion (0.06), so

the instrument used in this study was reliable. Since the instrument was valid and

reliable based on the tests, it was administered to all participants to obtain the data

needed in this study

Table 3.2

The result of reliability test of students’ self-efficacy in Speaking English

Variable Cronbach’s Alpha Criteria

Students‟ self-efficacy in speaking

English 0.953 >0.06 Reliable

3.6. Ordinal Category

Ordinal category is a categorization of a group tested or a scale into several

levels. It is purposed to place an individual to their own level according to

assessed attribute (Azwar, 2012). For example, the continuum of the level would

be “the lowest to the highest”. The assumption of this category is it has normal

distribution. For that reason, the levels can be determined by grouping it based on

existing formula (see Table 3.3).

The results from self-efficacy scale were categorized into five levels, namely

very high, high, medium, low, and very low by using the self-efficacy scale

category. It is described in the following table, and the clear description of the

formula can be seen in Chapter IV.

Table 3.3

(29)

29

Scoring Range Criteria

quantitative data, which were gathered by questionnaire, were analyzed by SPSS

20.0 to interpret the data. It was further processed through the ordinal

categorization to determine the range of the students‟ self-efficacy level, from

very high to very low. For the second question, as a qualitative data, Creswell

(2006) suggests some preparations before analyzing the data from the interview,

including: (1) Data Organization: organize the data into files and folders based on

the type of the data, (e.g. questionnaire or interviews), displaying the data in form

of table or matrix, and keeping copies of all the data.), (2) Data Transcript:

(30)

30

where the data are analyzed by hand or computer. To make it in detail, each step

of the data analysis based on the instrument used was elaborated as follow:

3.7.1.Questionnaire

In order to categorize the participants‟ level of self-efficacy in speaking

English, their scores in the questionnaire were quantified by using SPSS 2.0 and

next processed to the ordinal category. The steps are listed as follows:

1. Calculating the total score of each participant‟s questionnaire by summing up

the grade of each question (see appendix B)

2. Arranging the scores in order (from the highest to the lowest).

3. Analyzing the data by using SPSS 20.0 (see Chapter IV).

4. Processing the score in the ordinal category formula to determine the range of

students‟ level of self-efficacy (see Table 3.3 and Chapter IV).

3.7.2. Interview

The interviews were conducted to ten students based on a set of interview

guidelines (see Appendix C). Since there were five levels of self-efficacy, the students were labeled to represent each level. Therefore, the students were labeled

as:

1. Students with very high self-efficacy : Student 1 and Student 2

2. Students with high self-efficacy : Student 3 and Student 4

3. Students with medium self-efficacy : Student 5 and Student 6

(31)

31

5. Students with very low self-efficacy : Student 9 and Student 10

The data from the interviews were further transcribed, coded and analyzed

based on the main issue that was the factors influencing students‟ self-efficacy.

The factors were taken from the theory of factors influencing adolescents‟ self

-efficacy from Schunk and Meece (2005) (see Chapter II). The analyses of the

interview were also to ensure the validity and reliability of data in students‟ self

-efficacy scale. Here are the steps to analyze the data obtained in the interview:

1. Transcribing the data in the audio-recorder. A condensed version of

interview can be seen in Appendix D.

2. Reducing inappropriate data which are not relevant with this research.

3. Categorizing and coding the data based on the theme that is the factors

influencing students‟ self-efficacy.

4. Relating the data to the theories of self-efficacy and previous stuies on

students‟ self-efficacy. Creswell (2006) says that interrelating themes is

important to provide rigorous insight of the findings.

5. Reporting the findings by using narrative discussion. Narrative discussion,

as Creswell (2006) suggested, is the most common form of reporting

findings in qualitative research in which the writer summarized the

(32)

55

CHAPTER V

the second part of this chapter presents several recommendations for further

studies.

5.1. Conclusions

This paper has given an account of the investigation of students’ self -efficacy in speaking English. The aims were to figure out: (1) the levels of

self-efficacy that the students’ belong to; and (2) the factors affecting students’ self

-efficacy in speaking English.

For the first investigation, the finding has shown that, from sixty one participants, Five students (8.20%) had very high self-efficacy level and thirteen

students (21.31%) had high self-efficacy level in speaking English. Almost half of

the students (42.62%) or twenty six students had medium self-efficacy level in

speaking English. Meanwhile, there were fourteen students (22.95%) who had

low self-efficacy and three students (4.92%) who had very low self-efficacy in

speaking English.

For the second investigation, it was found that families and peers became the

influential factors to improve students’ self-efficacy in speaking English. Some

factors emerged in parents’ support, which positively affected students’ self -efficacy on their speaking skill, were: (1) verbal compliments on their ability in

(33)

56

participants in the interview also said that their education was well supported by

the financial situation of the parents, since almost all parents were worked.

In line with families, peers emerged as a very influential factor to students’

efficacy in speaking English. Four students with very high and high

self-efficacy showed that they were more confident to speak English since they often

communicated in English with their friends. In short, students who had intensive

time to speak English with their friends would help them to speak English better

and more confident.

On the other hand, schooling factors were regarded as having no influence to

students’ self-efficacy in speaking English. All students revealed that their skill in

speaking English was not caused by learning English subject at school. They were

rarely to speak English at school just because they did not need to use it at school.

Moreover, they believed that they could speak English because they had learned it

before in the past. Therefore, they could understand the English subject especially

speaking skill taught in the classroom.

5.2. Suggestions

In addition to the aforementioned conclusions before, this study also end up

with the following suggestions for parents, teacher and further researchers.

First, for parents, it is recommended that learning facilities will not work

effectively in improving students’ skill to speak English if they do not balance the

facilities with supports and encouragements. As the finding showed, the parents

who actively supported and communicated in English had children with greater

belief that they were able to speak English in front of other people.

Secondly, for English teachers, it is recommended that they have to increase

the use of English language in English subject, since it gives students more

(34)

57

hoped that students’ confidence to speak English in front of other people will

increase. Moreover, by knowing students’ self-efficacy levels and the factors

influencing it, it will help the teacher and parents to determine students who need

motivation and supports. Thus, the students can be encouraged to be more

confident to speak English, as well as having stronger efforts to learn it.

Third, for further studies, this study can be one of their sources to conduct a

research in academic self-efficacy context, especially in English subject`. This

study needs further research on strategies that the teachers and parents can use to

improve self-efficacy in speaking English in students. Student self-efficacy also

can be explored in any language skills, such as listening, writing, reading,

(35)

REFERENCES

Azwar, S. (2012). Penyusunan skala psikologi. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

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

/Bandura2001EJPA.pdf

Bandura, A. (1999). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing

societies. Self-efficacy in changing societies (3rd ed.). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, Vol. 4, pp.

71-81. New York: Academic Press. Available at:

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html

Bandura, A. (1982). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

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_data/

publications/1277275418_1.pdf

Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child

development. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, 371-399. Available

(36)

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multi-method research: A synthesis of styles.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to

language pedagogy, 2th edition. San Fransisco: Longman.

Budi, T. P. (2006). SPSS 13.0 Terapan: Riset statistik parametik. Yogyakarta:

research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J.W. (2006). Educational research: Planning, conducting and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Dawn. J. D. (2007). The self-efficacy of first-Generation college students.

Unpublished Dissertation. Available at:

https://studentsuccess.unc.edu/files/2012/11/Proceedings_of_the_NSSR-2009.pdf

Dodds, J. (2011). The correlation between self-efficacy beliefs, language

(37)

Unpublished Dissertation. Available at:

www.hamline.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147516352

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual

differences in second language acquisition. New Jersey London:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dweck, C. S., & Goetz, T. E. (1978). Attributions and learned helpless. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum. Available at:

https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/.../CV_1.pdf

Education First. (2011). English proficiency index. Available at: www.ef.com/epi.

Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre based approach to teaching academic writing

in a tertiary EFL context in Indonesia. Unpublished: University of

Melbourne.

Hatch, T. (2005). Data made easy: Using data to effect change. Paper presented

at the Conference of American School Counselor Association, Orlando,

FL. Available at:

http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas11/Article_91.pdf

Hatch, E., & Fahardy, H. (1982). Research design in statistic for applied

linguistics. Rowley: Newburry House Publisher, Inc.

Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English new edition. China: Longman.

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Singapore:

Longman.

Hamouda, A. (2012). An exploration of causes of Saudi students' reluctance to

(38)

English Language Education, Vol. 1, No. 1. Available at:

Idrus, H & Salleh, R. (2007). Oral communication ability in English: An essential

skill for engineering graduates. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and

Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, 107–123. Available at:

www.melta.org.my/.../Pages61-75%20Hairuzila%20&%20Rohani.pdf

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/pubs/scandself-efficacy.pdf

Mahyuddin, R., Elias, H., Cheng, S., Muhammad, M. F., Noordin, N., &

Abdullah, M. C. (2006). The relationship between students’ self-efficacy

and their English language achievement. Educational Journal, Vol 21, 61–

71. Available at:

http://web.usm.my/education/publication/4%20Rahi%20(61-71).pdf

Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and motivation:

What to do, what to say. Available at: http://serc.carleton.edu/20538.

Masrun. (1979). Analisis item. Unpublished dissertation: Fakultas Psikologi

Universitas Gajah Mada Yogyakarta.

Nevill, M. A. (2008). The impact of reading self-efficacy and the regulation of

(39)

sample. Unpublished Dissertation. Available at:

http://dspace.iup.edu/bitstream/handle/2069/82/Mark%20Nevill%20Corre

cted.pdf?sequence=1

Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A

review of the literature. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: Taylor & Francis.

Putnam, S. P., & Rothbart, K. (2006). Development of short and very short forms

of the children’s behavior questionnaire. Journal of Personality

Assessment, Vol. 87. Available at:

efficacy concerning listening comprehension and listening proficiency.

Available at: www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_3_1/rahimi_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.

(40)

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/20515/1348

5

Riasati, M. J. (2012). EFL learners’ perception of factors influencing willingness

to speak English in language classrooms: A qualitative study. World

Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 17. Available at:

http://idosi.org/wasj/wasj17(10)12/9.pdf

Ryan, A. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’

motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational

Psychologist, Vol. 35, 101-111. Available at:

http://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/4655/16700_15

0827.pdf

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_schunk_self_2003.pdf

Schunk, D. H., & Miller, S. D. (2002). Self-efficacy and adolescents’ motivation.

Greenwich: Information Age. Available at:

http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/PajaresAdoed2006.pdf

Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on

self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, Vol. 18, 337-354. Available at:

(41)

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational

Psychologist, Vol. 26, 207-231. Available at:

http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/d_schunk_self_1991.pdf

Setiadi, R. (2010). Self-efficacy in Indonesian literacy teaching context: A

theoretical and empirical perspective. Bandung: Rizqi Press.

Spicer, C. D. (2004). The written English self-efficacy of students with varying

abilities: A look at gifted students and students with learning disabilities.

Post-Script Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1. Available at:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-ED466413/pdf/ERIC-ED466413.pdf

Sugiyono. (2002). Metode penelitian bisnis. Bandung: ALFABETA

Thonbury, S. (2007). How to teach speaking. Pearson: Longman.

Troike, M. S. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge:

University Press.

Umar, H. (2002). Metode riset bisnis. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

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/articles/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/Self%20Efficacy%20and%20Stress%2

0Zajacova%20Lynch%20Espenshade%20Sept%202005.pdf

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An essential motive to learn.

(42)

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222529322_SelfEfficacy_An_Ess