CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
D. Research Instrument
In this research, there were two main instruments which were used to collect the data, the instrument were:
1. Questionnaire
To obtain the data, the writer used the questionnaire method.
Questionnaire instrument play an important role to collect data. Students were asked to answer the questions. This was used to find the students’ personality background. To measure the personality of the participants, that is, to identify the extroverts and the introverts, the revised version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R) was used. The short-scale questionnaire consists of 48 questions which measure the three dimensions of the personality: psychoticism, extroversion, neuroticism and lie scale. For the current study, only the twelve questions concerning the extroversion of a person are relevant. The questionnaire was taken and translated into Bahasa Indonesia in order to minimize the misinterpretation by the students.
Further, the following table is a table of specification of questionnaire items:
Table.3.2 EPQ-R Scoring Key
Scale Items of Questionnaire Total
Extroversion Yes: 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 32, 36, 44, 48.
No: 27, 41
12 Psycholicism Yes: 10, 14, 22, 31, 39
No: 2, 6, 18, 26, 28, 35, 43.
12 Lie Yes: 4, 16, 45
No: 8, 12, 20, 24, 29, 33, 37, 40, 47.
12 Neuroticism Yes: 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46 12
2. Speaking Test
The writer was given speaking test to the students in order to know their ability in speaking. The type of speaking test which used in this research is observing form by speaking score card. The speaking score card has two criteria, such as accuracy (grammar), and fluency (self confidence).
In scoring the result of students’ Speaking test evaluated based on two aspects speaking below:
1) The assessment of speaking accuracy consists into grammar, and vocabulary.
Table 3.3 The assessment of grammar
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 6 A few minor grammatical and lexical errors but most utterances are correct.
Very good 5 Make few noticeable errors of grammar and word
order.
Good 4 Occasionally makes grammatical of word order errors which do not, however obscure meaning.
Average 3 Makes frequent errors of grammar and word order which occasionally obscure meaning.
Poor 2 Grammar and word order errors make
comprehension difficult. Must often rephrase sentence or restrict him to basic pattern.
Very poor 1 Errors in grammar and word order as severe as to make speech virtually unintelligible.
(Heaton in Mirdayani, 2011: 35)
2) The assessment of Speaking Fluency involved self-confidence.
Table 3.4: The assessment of Self-confidence
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 6 Easy to the listener to understand the speaker’s intention and general meaning. Very few interruption or clarification required.
Very good 5 The speaker’s intention and general meaning are fair clear. A few interruptions by the listener for the sake of clarification are necessary.
Good 4 Most of what the speaker says is easy to follow. His attention is always clear but several interruptions are necessary to help him to convey the message or seek clarification
Average 3 The listener can understand a lot of what is said, but he must constantly seek clarification. Can not, understand and then with considerable effort by
someone who is used to listening to the speaker.
Poor 2 Only small bits (usually short sentence and phrase) can be understood and then with considerable effort by someone who is used to listening to the speaker hardly anything of what is said can be understood.
Very poor 1 Even the listener make a great effort interrupts, the speaker is unable to clarify anything he seems to have said.
(Heaton in Mirdayani, 2011: 35)
E. Procedure to Collecting Data
To collect the data the writer was implement some techniques. Firstly, the writer did observation to the samples, then the writer gave the questionnaire to the current sample to fill and then analyzed. They were given a personality inventory test (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, EPQ-R). Before distribute the questionnaire to the sample, it firstly was consulted to the consultant in order to ensure that the questionnaire are appropriate to reach the students' personality.
The questionnaire was used to find the students’ personality background. They were asked to answer the items based on their initial understanding of the questionnaire. The students’ personality types were determined by using questionnaire and the analysis of the questionnaire was transformed into quantitative data. The questionnaire consists of 12 questions that have 2 answer options, “YES” or “NO”. To assess the questionnaire, the writer needs to calculate the question items that has checklist (√) in option answer “YES” or “NO”. The total points of each subject are calculated considering the “YES” or “NO” answer that he/she had given. The subjects receive 1 point for each “YES” answer and 0
for each “NO” answer for (No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12), and the subjects receive 1 point for each “No” answer and 0 for each “Yes” answer for (No. 7, 10).
The results of the personality test were interpreted according to the scoring key, with a test score of 0/12 indicating extreme introversion, and 12/12 extreme extroversion. Accordingly, a test score of 5-7 shows that the person is neither an introvert nor an extrovert but has characteristics of both personality types (Ambivert). As the current study focuses on the differences between introverts and extroverts, participants with an EPQ-R score from 5 to 7 are not included in the study.
Table.3.5
Standard Measurement of EPQ-R
Score Personality Type
1-4 Introvert
5-7 Ambivert
8-12 Extrovert
(adapted from Valmari, 2014: 21)
Next, students were given speaking test, which provided researcher with necessary amount of data. The writer asked the students to speak and explained about their personality or themselves in three minutes. Before the speaking test performed, the subjects are briefly informed about the study and the data collection procedure but the aim of the study were not introduce to the learners.
Students’ speaking ability was assessed by the speaking score card. The speaking score card has two criteria, such as accuracy (grammar), and fluency (self confidence).
F. Technique of Data Analysis
In order to conduct a good arrangement, the writer used a statistical formula. This formula used to find the effect of personality (Introversion- Extroversion) on students’ speaking ability. The data analysis of this research as follows:
To know the level of students’ speaking ability was determined by the average score. The following formula will help us to calculate the mean score:
X
= Σ
Where:
X : mean score of students speaking ability ΣX : the sum of student score
N : the total of samples
(Gay, 2010: 321)
To calculate the percentage of the students’ speaking scores, the formula which is used as follows:
P = F
x100%
Where:
P : Rate Percentage
F : Frequency of the students’ score N : The total number of students
(Sudjana in Rahmawati, 2011:26).
The writer uses Pearson Product Moment formula to investigate the correlations between students’ personality and the students speaking ability. The relation between independent and dependent variables is determined by using Pearson Product Moment correlation formula as follow:
= ∑ XY ∑ X ∑ YN
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
Where:
rxy : Coefficient correlation X and Y
∑X : The sum of score in X distribution
∑ Y : The sum of score in Y distribution
∑ XY : The sum product pair X and Y scores
∑X2 : The sum of square in X
∑ Y2 : The sum of square in Y N : The number of samples
(Gay, 2012: 332)
To know the correlation of two variables in 5% significance level, the researcher used with df formula. df= N-nr
df : degree of freedom N : the number of samples
Nr : the numbers of variables (X and Y)
Table value was used to see the significance that based on the population of the sample. To know the result of the correlation analysis, the standard correlation Pearson r is used by the writer.
Table.3.4
Standard of correlation Pearson Product Moment
No Standard of “r” Interpretation
1 0,800 – 1,000 High
2 0,600 – 0,799 Substantial
3 0,400 – 0.599 Moderate
4 0,200 – 0,399 Low
5 0,00 – 0,199 Very Low
(Arikunto, 2002: 245)
To know whether there is any significant correlation or not between X variable and Y variable, the researcher formulated (Alternative hypothesis) and (Null hypothesis) first. The statistical hypothesis with significance level 5% was formulated as follow:
: r = 0 : r ≠ 0
If !" > means there is correlation between X variable and Y variable,
is accepted and is rejected.
If !" < means there is no correlation between X variable and Y variable,
is accepted and is rejected
38 CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of the result finding of the research and its discussion. The findings of the research present the result of students’ personality background which is correlated by level in students’ speaking ability. The discussion of the research coves further explanation of the findings. All the data is presented based on the action that has been conducted, as follows:
A. Finding
On this section, the writer present the result of the research of the students’
personality background, students’ speaking ability, and the correlation between students’ personality background and their speaking ability of the first semester students of English Education Department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University.
1. The Students’ Personality Background
The students’ personality background at the first semester students of English Education Department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University. Based on the data collected from the questionnaire, the score of students’ personality background (Extroversion-Introversion) had been determined.
Table.4.1
Mean Score of the Students’ Personality Background
Variable Total score Mean score
Personality background 213 6.87
Based on the result of the table 4.1 above shows that total of students’
personality score was 213, while mean score was 6.87.
Personality background focused on introvert and extrovert personality.
The following table is the students who have been categorized into introvert and extrovert personality.
Table.4.2
The Frequency and Rate Percentage Students’ Personality Personality types Frequency Percentage
Introvert 10 23.81%
Extrovert 21 50%
Ambivert 7 16.67%
Other 4 9.52%
Total 42 100%
Based on the result of the data table 4.2 shows that there were 10 students (32.26%) tend Introvert personality, there were 21 students (67.74%) tend Extrovert personality, there were 7 students tend Ambivert, and there were 4 students absent. As the current study focuses on the introverts and extroverts participants, the Ambivert personality and the students were absent are not included in the study.
o Students’ Speaking Ability
In speaking ability, the writer only focus on two elements of speaking.
Those are speaking accuracy (involved Grammar) and fluency (involved Self Confidence). In this case the writer used speaking test for collecting the data.
Based on the data collected from speaking test from 31 students, had been determined. The speaking score of the students are presented in the following table.
Table.4.3
Students’ Speaking Score
Speaking Ability Total Score Mean Score Classification
Accuracy 123.5 3.98 Average
Fluency 129 4.16 Good
Total 252.5 8.14
The illustration of the table 4.3 shows that mean score of speaking accuracy was 3.98 and based on the standard classification it was classified as
“Average”. Then the mean score of speaking fluency was 4.16 and it was classified as “Good”. And total score of students’ speaking ability was 252.5, the mean score was 8.14.
Table.4.4
The Frequency and Rate Percentage Students’ Speaking Ability No. Score Classification Frequency Percentage
1 6 Excellent - 0%
2 5 Very good 6 19.35%
3 4 Good 15 48.39%
4 3 Average 10 32.26%
5 2 Poor - 0%
6 1 Very poor - 0%
Total 31 100%
Table 4.4 above shows that there is none of them get excellent, poor, and very poor score, while there are 7 students (18.42%) get very good, there are 21 students (55.27%) get good score and there are 10 students (26.31%) get average score.
o Extrovert and Introvert Personality on Speaking Ability Table.4.5
Mean and Standard Deviation Score of the Two Groups on Speaking Score Extrovert Students Introvert Students
Mean 8.79 6.80
Standard Deviation 1.067 0.789
The tables 4.5 above described that the mean score of the Extrovert students was 8.79, and the standard deviation of the Extrovert students was 1.067.
While the mean score of the Introvert students was 6.80 and the standard deviation of the Introvert students was 0.789. Looking on the Table 4.5, there were differences both the result of the Mean and Deviation Standard. Thus there was difference between the two groups’ performance (extroverts and introverts) on speaking ability.
2. The Correlation between Students’ Personality Background and Students’ Speaking Ability
The correlation of students’ personality background and speaking ability are presented in the following table:
Table.4.6
Correlation between Students’ Personality and Students’ Speaking
No. Variable Value
1. Personality score (X) 256
2. Speaking score (Y) 312.5
3. !" 0.630
This is the result of from the data derived from variable X and Y, and after using Pearson product moment formula, the final result is !" = 0.630. However, in relation to the standard correlation to find out whether there is correlation between two variable of this research is significant or not, the result of r analysis command with r table. Considered !" with t-table, the result of !" value is 0.630. It means that the standard of correlation is conducted between 0.600 – 0.799 with “Substantial” interpretation. It could be stated that there is positive correlation between students’ personality background and their English speaking ability at the first semester students of English Education Department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University.
3. The Hypothesis Test
Furthermore, to investigate the hypothesis whether this value ( !" ) was significant or not, the researcher consulted with the r table of critical value product moment was 5%, with the sample (df) = 29. It was found that the critical value of r of r table was 0.355.
As described in previous chapter, if !" > means there is correlation between X variable and Y variable, is accepted and is rejected. Then if
!" < means there is no correlation between X variable and Y variable,
is accepted and is rejected.
From the result above, the researcher got that !" > ; 0.630 > 0.355 that means was accepted and was rejected. In another word, there was significance correlation between students’ personality background and their speaking ability.
B. Discussion
Personality background focused on introvert and extrovert personality.
Based on the data collected from 42 students by using the questionnaire, that there were 10 students (23.81%) tend Introvert personality, and there were 21 students (50%) tend Extrovert personality at the first semester students of English Education Department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University in academic year 2015/2016.
Looking on the statistical descriptive of the Mean and Standard Deviation Score of the Two Groups (Extrovert and Introvert) on Speaking score, it can be clarified that there was difference between the Extrovert and the Introvert students on their English speaking ability, the Extrovert students are assumed to have a good and better ability in speaking than Introvert. Similar to what Abali (2006) found that extraversion extraverted students tend to be better than introverts in terms of overall speech production.
The result of Pearson Correlation Coefficient shows !" = 0.630, that was classified “Substantial Correlation” where standard correlation was between 0.600-0.799. It could be stated that there was positive correlation between students’ personality background and their English speaking ability at the first semester students of English Education Department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University in academic year 2015/2016.
The result show that hypothesis was accepted/tenable. It means that there was significant correlation between the students’ personality background and the students’ speaking ability of the First Semester Students of Makassar Muhammadiyah University in Academic of 2015/2016.
The result of the present study are partly in line with the results of the previous research. Whereas, other researches illustrate that personality types correlate with EFL, e.g., researchers (Rossier, 1976; Dewaele and Furnham, 2000;
Hassan, 2001; Abali, 2006) found a significant correlation between extraversion- introversion and oral L2 performance components. But contrary to what (Busch, 1982; Dewaele, 1996; Manalo and Greenwood, 2004; Daele, 2005). That there were no significant correlation between extraversion-introversion and oral L2 performance components.
So far the studies looking at the correlation between extraversion/introversion and speaking performance have found contradictory results. Finally, the difference in methodology between this study and previous studies might also have affected the results. This is because the findings support some previous researches, while contradicts other researches.
45 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter presents conclusion and suggestion based on this research which has been done at English Education Department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University.
A. Conclusion
Based on the research findings and discussions in the previous chapter, the following conclusions were presented:
1. There were 10 students (23.81%) tend Introvert personality, and there were 21 students (50%) tend Extrovert personality at the first semester students of English Education Department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University.
2. There was significant correlation between the students’ personality background (Extrovert-Introvert) and their ability in speaking English at the first semester students of English Education Department of Makassar Muhammadiyah University.
Based on the result above it can be concluded that students’ personality both Extrovert and Introvert did have any correlation or influence on their ability in speaking.
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion of this research, it can be recommended some suggestions to:
Lecturers
Lecturers of speaking need to be aware of internal condition of the learners, consider the students’ personality and determine the best strategy in teaching learning process to minimize students’ gap and maximize their potential in speaking skill.
Students
Students should understand themselves, especially in what skill they are good at, and what skill they lack. And they should be more concern and also spend more time to learn and master English skill they were lack off. So that they can improve themselves to achieve success in mastering all the English skill, especially in speaking.
Further Researchers
The result of this study is expected to be used as consideration or preview for the next researchers in doing the same field of the study with the different object of the research.
Ankara.
Agus. (2010). Improving The Students’ Speaking Ability Through Controversial And Unresolved Topic Method (Cut) At Second Grade Of Sma Muhammadiyah 7 Makassar. Retrieved from August 2015. FKIP University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Ahmadian, M. and Yadegari, H. R. (2009). “The Effects of Extroversion/Introversion on the Use of Strategic Competence in Written Referential Communication”
In IJAL, vol:12, no:1.
Aiken, L. R. (1993). Personality: Theories, Research, and Applications. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Allen, B. P. (1994). Personality Theories. Ally and Bacon. P. 1, 2, 391-400.
Anik I. (2010). The Influence of Extroversion toward Students’ Speaking Achievement of the Fifth Semester of English-Departement of State Islamic Studies Institute of Salatiga in the Academic Year of 2009/2010. STAIN Salatiga. Indonesia.
Arikunto, S. (2006), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Atbas, E. (1997). An Investigation of the Relationship between the Personality Traits of Introversion-Extroversion and the Oral Proficiency of Learners of English in An EFL Setting in Turkey. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.
Ausubel, P. David. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ba’dulu, Abdul Muis. (2004). English Syntax. Makassar: UNM Publisher.
Badran, A. Hassan. (2001). Extraversion/Introversion and Gender in Relation to the English Pronunciation Accuracy of Ara-bic Speaking College Students. A Re-search Report. Egypt: College of Edu-cation, Mansoura University.
Berry, Vivien. (2007). Personality Differences and Oral Test Performance.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Boeree, C. G. (2006). Personality Theories: Carl Jung 1875-1961. Retrieved from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html
Bowdon, T. B. (2007). 50 Psychology Classics. London, UK: Nicholas Brealey.
Brown, H. Douglas. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. London:
Longman Publishing Group.
Busch, D. (1982). Introversion-Extroversion and the EFL Proficiency of Japanese Students. Language Learning, 32, 109-32.
Personality Factor Questionnaire. (16PF) Champaign, I11.: IPAT.
Cervone, D and Pervin, L. A. (2014). Personality Psychology. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons. Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Cherry, K. (2012). 10 Fascinating Facts about Personality: Fun and Fascinating Facts about Human Personality. Retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/tp/facs-about-
personality.htm
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan.
Daele, V. S. (2005). The Effects of Extraversion on L2 Oral Proficiency. Circulo de Linguistica Aplicada a la Comunicacion, 24, 91-114.
Dembling, S. (2012). The Introvert’s Way: Living a Quiet Life in a Noisy World. New York, NY: Perigree-Penguin.
Dewaele, J.-M. and Furnham, A. (1999). “Extraversion: The Unloved Variable in Applied Linguistics Research”. Language Learning 49 (3): 509–544.
Dewaele, J. M. Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and Speech Production: A Pilot Study of Second Language Learners. Personality and Individual Differences,28,355-365.
Dewaele, J. M. (2007). Predicting Language Learners’ Grades in the L1, L2, L3 and L4: The Effect of Some Psychological and Sociocognitive Variables.
Department of Applied Linguistics, Birkbeck, University of London. U.K.
Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding Second Langauge Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1958). A Short Questionnaire for the Measurement of Two Dimensions of Personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42, 14-17.
Eysenck, H. J. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Eysenck, H. J. (1970). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London:
University of London Press.
Eysenck, J. Hans and Glenn Wilson. (1976). Know Your Own Personality. England:
Penguin Books.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A Revised Version of the Psychoticism Scale, Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21-29. “The Eysenck Personality Measures: Fifty Years of Scale Development”. In Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G. and Saklofske, D. H (Eds.).
Furnham, A., Eysenck, S. B. G., Saklofske, D. H. (2008). ‘The Eysenck Personality Measures: Fifty Years of Scale Development’. In Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G.
and Saklofske, D. H (Eds.).
Gay, L. R. (2012). Educational Research, Competences for Analysis and Application, 10th Edition. Olumbus: Merril Prentice Hall.