CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
E. Data analysis
The statements in questionnaire were describe language learning situation in speaking class which were rated as to the degree of anxiety that respondents percieved they would experience in certain situations. There are two kinds of statement in the questionnaire which are positive and negative
statement. The positive statement are number 4 “I feel relaxed while speaking English in class”, 8 “I have no fear of speaking English in front of class”, 10”I feel confidents to speak English in front of class , bacause I want to know my mistakes when I speak”, 13 “I always feel better in speaking English than other students”, 16 “I always asking actively when I don‟
understand every word that my English teacher says”, and 19 “I feel confidence while speaking English when I know more vocabulary”. While the negative statement are 1 “I‟m always feel quite sure of my self while speaking English”, 2 “althougth i‟m nerveous just before starting to speaking English in front of class, I soon setle down after starting”, 3 “I tremble when I know I'm going to be called on English classes”, 5 “I don‟t feel confidence when I speak English in Class”, 6 “while preparing for speaking English in front of people, I feel tense and nervous”, 7 “I‟m afraid of making mistake in English classes”, 9 “I feel anxious while I‟m waiting to speak English”, 11 “It emberras me to volunter answer in English classes”, 12 “I start to panic When I have to speak Without preparation in English classes”, 14 “I feel shy while speaking English with native speaker”, 15 “when I make a mistake while giving a English speech, I find it hard to concentrate on the next part”, 17 “I find it hard to look the audience in my eyes while speaking English”, 18”I‟m afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak English” and 20
“I get neveous and confused when I‟m speaking English in class”. The data calculated manually with the range of score 20 to 100. After the each score from students‟ result of FLCAS (foreign language classroom anxiety scale. It
was categorized into some level of anxiety started from “very anxious”,
“anxious”, and “very ralaxed” based on Oetting‟s Scale.
Table 3.1. FLCAS Anxiety Scale Adapted from Oetting’s Scale
Range Level
4.1-5
Very Anxious 3.1-4
Anxious 2.1-3
Middle Anxious 1.1-2
Relaxed
>-1
Very Relaxed (Elaine K.Horwitz, 1986)
Table 3.2. Likert Scale
(Sugiyono, 2014:136)
Item Score
Strongly Agree 5
Agree 4
Undicided 3
Disagree 2
Strongly Disagree 1
FLCAS and likert Scale were administered by the research the collected data were analyzed by manually calculation. To find the levels of language anxiety, the mean score calculated to determine the language anxiety.
The means score were calculated to determine the questionnaire where using the formula as follow :
Where: = Median/average
∑X = total score of students N = total number of students
(Gay, 1981: 298) While to analyzed the percentage technique by using this formula
Notation: P = percentage
F = number of correct N = number of sample
The students‟ clasification from the speaking test will collected the data were analyzed by manually calculation by clasification of scroring fluency and clasification of scroring accurasy . To find the levels of language anxiety.
Table 3.3. The clasification of scoring fluency
Clasification Score Criteria
Excellent 6 Speaks without too great an effort with a fairly wide range of expression. Shearches for occasionnally but only one or two unnatural pauses.
Very Good 5 Have to make an effort at time and search ford words. Neverthless, smooth delivery on the whole
and only a few unnatural pauses.
Good 4 Although have to make an effort and search words, there are not too many unnatural pauses. Fairly smooth delivery mostly
Fair 3 Have to make an effort for much of the time. Often repeat the word which have already say. Rather halting delivery and range of expression often limited.
Poor 2 Long pauses while searches for desire meaning.
Frequently fragmentaly and halting delivery. Almost give up making the effort at the time. Limited range of expression.
Very Poor 1 Full of long and natural pauses. Very halting and fragmentaly delivery. At times give up making the effort. Very limeted range of expression.
Table 3.4. The Clasification of Scoring accurasy
Clasification Score Criteria
Excellent 6 Pronunciation is only very slightly influenced by the the mother tongue. Two or three minor gramatical and lexical errors.
Very Good 5 Pronunciation is very slightly influence by the the mother tongue. A few utterance are correct Good 4 Pronunciation is still moderately influence by the
mother tongue. No serious phonological errors.
A few gramatical and lexical errors bit only
cause confusion.
Average 3 Pronunciation is influence by the mother tongue.
Only a few serious phonological errors. Several grammatical and lexical errors. Event some of which cause confusion.
Poor 2 Pronunciation seriously influence by the mother tongue with errors causing breakdown in communication. Many basic grammatical and lexical errors
Very Poor 1 Serious pronunciation errors as well as many basic gramatical and lexical errors. No evidence of having master any of the language skills areas practice on the course.
(Fluency and Accurasy of pronountiation feature Clasification, Heaton :1988:100 in Nurul) The score on the table was converted into the score in the table score by using following formula:
Notation : X = Score of the students N = Score Maximum 10 = Standart Score
Table 3.3. The Interpretation of Students Score No Clasification Range
1. Excellent 9.6-10
2. Very Good 8.6-9.5
3. Good 7.6-8.5
4. Avarege 6.6-7.5
5. Fair 5.6-6.5
6. Poor 3.6-5.5
7. Very Poor 0.3.5
(Depdikbud 1986:6 in Nurul)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the results of the study are presented. The chapter was divided into two main sections; they are findings of the research and the discussion of the research. The findings presented the result of data analysis collected through questionnaire and speaking test about the Influence of students‟
anxiety in speaking English at junior high school in SMP Negeri 02 Arungkeke.
The discussion deals with the interpretation of the findings in the research.