sign in sign up
<<
Home , Linguistic competence, Linguistic performance

AND SPEAKING PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM STUDENTS OF SRIWIJAYA UNIVERSITY

Dwi Wahyuni [email protected] Diemroh Ihsan [email protected] Rita Hayati [email protected]

Abstract:The objectives of this study were to find out whether or not there was (1) a significant correlation between linguistic competence (LC) and speaking performance (SP), and (2) a contribution of linguistic competence to speaking performance. The method of the study was a correlational study. The population was the fourth, sixth, and the eighth semester students of English Education Study Program, Sriwijaya University in academic year of 2013/2014. The total number of the sample was 100 students. In this study, the students were given two kinds of tests, that is, linguistic competence test and speaking test used to measure the two main variables (LC and SP). The data obtained from the tests were analyzed by using Pearson Product Moment Coefficient on SPSS program for windows. The findings showed that there was a significant correlation between students’ linguistic competence and their speaking performance. The correlation coefficien between linguistic competence and speaking performance was 0.315 and the correlation was low or weak. Furthermore, it was found that the influence of linguistic competence on speaking performance was 9.9 %. It is concluded that linguistic competence gave contribution to students’ speaking performance.

Key words:linguistic competence, correlation, speaking performance

Talking about as means of by which sounds and meanings are communication, it is necessary to related. In addition, Kola (2008) defines consider the importance of language language as “a complex and dynamic itself in our life. The importance of system ofconventional symbols that are language in general had attracted the used in various modes forthought and attention of scholars.Osisanwo (2003, p. communication” (p. 12). 1, as cited in Adekunle & Aina, 2012, p. The scientific study of human 1) seeslanguage as “Human vocal noise language that refers to has or the arbitrary graphic presentation of close relationship with language itself. this noise, used systematically and Taha and Reishaan (2008, p. 35) argues conventionally by members of a thatlinguistics is concerned with the community for purposes of study of competence, and does not communication”. Fromkin and Rodman restrict itself to performance. The (1993, p. 5) define language as a system statement indicates that there is a

83 difference between competence and them all together”. Furthermore, performance. Moreover, Chomsky linguistic knowledge as represented in (1965, as quoted in Finch, 2003, p. 16) the speaker’s mind is called agrammar. distinguishes competence and Fromkin (2000, p.7) defines performance as two types of linguistic as follows : ability. In linguistics, as cited by Hamerka (2009, p. 14), the term Agrammar includes everything one competence is used to describe the knows about the structure of one’s learner´s capacity to produce alanguage. language– its (the words or Another term, performance, denotes the vocabulary in the mental dictionary), itsmorphology(the production of actualutterances as a structure of words), its (the result of certainpsychological processes structure of phrasesand sentences (de Kort and Leerdam, as cited in Scha, and the constraints on well- 1990, p. 5). formedness of sentences), Similarly, Fromkin and Rodman itssemantics(the meaning of words (1993) differentiate competence and and sentences) and its performance as follows, “it is a phoneticsandphonology(the sounds difference between what you know, and the sound system or patterns) which is your linguistic competence and how you use this knowledge in actual Therefore, linguistic competence speech production and comprehension, refers to the knowledge and ability of which is your ” individuals for appropriate language use (pp. 11-12). in the communicative events in which Based on Chomsky's theory, our they find themselves in any particular linguistic competence is our . unconscious knowledge of In attempting to describe linguistic and the organizing principles of a competence, linguistic construct a language. Then, what we actually grammar, which is an explicit system of produce as utterances is called linguistic elements and rules that are needed to performance (Denham & Lobeck, form and interpret sentences (O’Grady, 2013, p. 21). Furthermore, O’Grady, Dobrovolsky, & Aronoff, 1989, p.4). Dobrovolsky, and Aronoff, (1989) state, Widdowson (1983, p. 1) state, “…speakers of language know a system “someone knowing a language knows that enables them to create and more than how to understand speak, understand novel utterances. This read, and write sentences. He also unconscious knowledge is often labeled knows how sentences are used to linguistic competence” (p. 4). communicative effect”. When a speaker Linguistic competence includes of any language, no matter if the therules of word formation and language is their first, or second,speaks vocabulary (lexicon), pronunciation the language, their performance results (), and sentenceformation from their competence (Hamerka, 2009, (syntax). This knowledge of the p. 15). language code is framed in terms According to Widdowson (1983, p. ofunderstanding the literal meaning of 1), the aims of a language teaching the utterance (Verhoeven & Vermeer, course are very often defined with 1992, pp.164-166, as cited by Pillar, reference to the four language skills: 2012, p. 6). Fromkin and Rodman understanding speech (listening), (1993, p. 12) describe linguistic speaking, reading, and . These competence as “the linguistic system aims relate to the kind of activity which that includes the sounds, structures, the learners are to perform. Speaking is meaning, words, and rules for putting one of two productive skills in a language teaching. Furthermore, Widdowson (1983, p. of language through four language 57) states that speaking and writing are skills especially speaking. Based on said to be active, or productive skills Chomsky’s theory, the knowledge of whereas listening and reading are said language is students’ linguistic to be passive, or receptive skills. competence as input in process of Speaking plays an important role in knowing language and speaking is learning a foreign language because it is output of linguistic performance (as used as a measurement of knowing cited by Chidambaram, 2005, p. 9). language. Widdowson (1983) argues, Speaking is taught in four “speaking in the usage sense involves semesters, that is, IEC Speaking, the manifestation either of the Speaking I, Speaking II, and Speaking phonological system or of the III. Although the students of English grammatical system of the language or Education Study Program have taken both” (p. 58). Therefore, the learners both of the linguistics and speaking seem to be well aware of the fact that courses, some of the students’ speaking knowing language means being able to performance is not so good yet. When speak. they speak, they often make mistakes in Speaking is a part of linguistic pronunciation and grammar. performance that takes input from However, the data taken from linguistic knowledge. Linguistic English Education Study Program of knowledge is assumed as a theory rather Sriwijaya University showed 23.4 % of than applied as linguistic performance. 41 students in year of entrance 2010 got In linguistics, such in other science A for IEC Speaking, 41% of 41 students branches, the abstract theory and got A for Speaking I, 58.5% of 41 applied practice have relationship but students got A for Speaking II, and 78% the theory preceded its applied (Lyons, of 41 students got A for Speaking III. 1968, p. 70). According to Bygate Although the data showed that there (1987, p. 3), in order to achieve a was a progress in students’ speaking communicative goal throughspeaking, achievement, it must be supported by there are two aspects to be considered – linguistic knowledge to measure the knowledge of the language, and skill students’ speaking achievement. De inusing this knowledge (as cited in Jong, Steinel, Florijn, Schoonen, and Vilimec, 2006, p. 10). Hulstijn (2012, p. 14) found that the In English Education Study linguistic knowledge measures aspects Program, Faculty of Teacher Training of linguistic processing skills. So, it and Education, Sriwijaya University, could be assumed that the students’ linguistics is taught in the third semester English ability in English Education under the subject called ‘Introduction to Study Program of Sriwijaya University Linguistics’. In this course, the students are still not good yet since only 2.4 % are taught about basic components of of 41 students got A for Introduction to linguistics including Phonology, Linguistics and 34% of 41 students got , , Syntax, and lower than B. . In the following semesters, Related to a previous study, those basic components of linguistics students face many problems in are taught in more details. So, those speaking. Hamerka (2009, p. 39) in his courses can help students to know the survey found that there were possible language. Fromkin and Rodman (1993) causes the problems of students’ state, “When you know a language, you speaking performance. They were not know the sounds, the words, and the enough opportunities to use English rules for combination” (p. 11). The actively for communication (28 %), not students can perform their knowledge enough opportunities to be in an English-speaking enviroment (27%), Indralaya in the academic year psychical causes (19%), insufficient 2013/2014 that has studied Introduction knowledge of English (10%), not to Linguistics subject. The writer chose enough opportunities to listen to spoken fourth, sixth, and eighthsemester English (8%), the way of learning students since they had the same English in general (6%) and other characteristics. The total number of the causes (2%). population of the study was 123 Based on the descriptions above, students.In this study, the writer used the students’ linguistic competence total sampling method. might support their speaking To collect the data for this study, achievement. Since speaking is very tests were used. There were two tests in important for the students of English this study: the linguistic competence Education Study Program when they test and the speaking test.The linguistic become teachers, they need to be aware competence test was administered to of knowledge of language; whether it is find out the students’ linguistic high (positive) or low (negative) and competence. The linguistic competence how their linguistic competence test consisted of aspects or basic correlates with and influence their components of linguistics that speaking achievement. Therefore, the isPhonology, Morphology, Syntax, writer was interested in investigating Semantic, and Pragmatics. The writer whether or not there was any significant conducted the linguistic competence correlation between linguistic test based on a book ‘An Introduction to competence and speaking performance Language’ that was used by students of (total and partial) of English Education English Education Study Program of Study Program students of Sriwijaya Sriwijaya University. Then, the writer University. If there was, the next took some references not only from the purpose was to find out the contribution book but also from internet for of linguistic competence (total and conducting the test. Besides, some partial)to speaking performance. items of the test were linguistics theories that related to definitions of each linguistics aspects.In order to RESEARCH METHOD measure students’ speaking This study used explanatory design performance, speaking test was given. which is a correlationaldesign in which To do that, the students were given the the researcher is interested in theextent same topic to talk about in 2-5 minutes to which two variables (or more) co- which were video-taped recorded by vary, that is, where changes in one using a digital camera. There were three variableare reflected in changes in the steps to collect the data: other (Creswell, 2012, p.340). There were two variables in this Step 1 : The writer gave the topic study, independent variable (x) and What is the unforgettablemoment in dependent variable (y). The your life? Why do you think so? independent variable was students’ Step 2 : The students were given 5 minutes to think about the topic and their linguistic competence, and the own sentences. dependent variable was speaking Step 3 : The students were asked one by one performance of English Education to speak and the writer video taped Study Program students of Sriwijaya it. University. The population of this study was To ensure that the instrument that students of English Education Study the writer used was accurate, content Program of Sriwijaya University at validity was applied. The writer tried out50 of linguistic performance of English Education competence test to 30 students of Study Program students of Sriwijaya English Education Study Program in University, the Pearson Product Palembang as non sample students. The Moment Correlation Coefficient result of the analysis showed that 16 formula in Statistical Package for Social items of 50 items of the linguistics Science (SPSS) type 21. In addition, competence test were not valid because regression analysis was applied to test the correlation was below 0.361, but the whether independent variable writer only used 30 items to be (Linguistic competence) significantly administered to the sample that covered determined the dependent variable the aspects of linguistics in the same (students’ speaking performance). total number.To measure the reliability Regression analysiswas used to support of the linguistic competence test, the the correlation coefficient analysis and writer used internal-consistency to find out how much the contribution reliability. Cresswell (2012, p. 161) of the independent variable to the defines “the coefficient alpha is used to dependent variable. test for internal consistency”. The writer analyzed the reliability of the instrument Cronbach’s Alpha Method. FINDINGS To find the reliability the writer used The Result of the Linguistic SPSS version 21. It was found that Competence Test Alpha obtained was 0.754. According Based on Table 1, it was found that to Wallen and Fraenkel (1991, p. 99), the highest score of linguistic for research purposes, a rule thumb is competence test was 28 and the l owest that realiability should be at least 0.70 score was 9. The mean score was 19.27 or preferably. Consequently, the result and the standard deviation was 3.604. of the try out showed that the From the table, it can be seen that 2 instrument was reliable. (2%) students were categorized as very The speaking test was validated by good, 39 (39%) students were matching the test item with the categorized as good, 35 (35%) students objectives of the test. The objectives are were categorized as fair, 12 (12%) were to find out whether (1) the students are categorized as poor, and 2 (2%) able to apply their knowledge of students were categorized as very poor. language in their speaking performance, Furthermore, having divided the (2) the students are able to speak using students by the semester, the writer the content as rubric presents, they are: found that in semester IV there were 10 pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, (28.6%) students categorized having , comprehension, and gesture. In good linguistic competence, 17 (48.6%) order to ensure the validity and students categorized having fair reliability of a speaking tests attention linguistic competence, 7 (20%) students needs to be paid the quality of the categorized having poor linguistic speaking performance along with competence, and 1 (2.9%) students scoring that is based on the specific categorized having very poor linguistic criteria to the particular testing context competence. In semester VI, there were (Kim, 2006, p. 2). The students’ 22 (59.5%) students categorized having speaking performance scored by two good linguistic competence, 9 (25.7%) raters based on a rubric that consists of students categorized having fair six criteria. linguistic competence, 5 (14.3%) To find out whether or not there students categorized having poor was a significant correlation between linguistic competence, and 1 (2.9%) linguistic competence and speaking students categorized having very poor linguistic competence. In semester VIII, excellent, 7 students were categorized there were 2 (7.1%) students as good, 20 students were categorized categorized having very good, 7 (25%) as average, 1 student was categorized as students categorized having good poor, and no student was categorized as linguistic competence, and 19 (67.9) very poor in speaking performance students categorized having fair linguistic competence. Table 2 Summary of Descriptive Statistics of Table1 Speaking Test (N=100) N Summary of Descriptive Statistics No of Student total Variable ofLinguistic Competence (N=100) N IV VIII No of Student VI total Variable Speaking

IV VIII Performance VI Excellent 0 0 0 0 Linguistic Competence Good 2 2 7 11 Very Good 0 0 2 2 Average 21 30 20 71 Good 10 22 7 39 Poor 11 5 1 17 Fair 17 9 19 35 Very Poor 1 0 0 1 Poor 7 5 0 12 Total 35 37 28 100

Very Poor 1 1 0 2 Total 35 37 28 100 The Correlation and Linear Regression Analysis (Total)

In order to find out whether or not The Result of Speaking Test there was a significant correlation The result of the students speaking between students’ linguistic test showed that the highest point was competence and their speaking 24 and the lowest score was 10 with performance, the writer used the 18.37 for the mean and 2.269 for the Pearson Product Moment Correlation standard deviation. In Table 4.2 below, Coefficient formula which was done by it can be seen that from total, there was using SPSS version 21 for windows. none (0%) student categorized as The following table shows the excellent, 11 (11%) students were correlation between two variables. categorized as good, 71 (71%) students were categorized as average, 17 (17%) Table 3 students were categorized as poor, and Correlation between Linguistic 1 (1%) student was categorized as very Competence and Speaking Performance poor in speaking performance. (N=100) Model r R Adjusted p.value From Table2, it can also be seen square R Square that in semester IV none of the students 1 .315a .099 .090 .001 was excellent, 2 students were good, 21 were average, 11 students were poor, and 1 student was very poor in speaking From the table above, it was found performance. In semester VI, there was that the correlation coeeficient (r) no student categorized as excellent, 2 between linguistic competence and students were categorized as good, 30 speaking performance was .315, which students were categorized as average, 5 is categorized in low or weak category. students were categorized as poor, and Based on the degree of correlation no student categorized as very poor in coefficient (see Sugiyono, 2010, p. speaking performance. In semester VIII, 245), the range between 0.20-0.40is low there was no student categorized as or weak. It means there was a aspects of linguistic competence correlation between two variables. contributed 11.3% to students’ Furthermore, the table showed that vocabulary in speaking. The Rsquare of the significant level was less than .05 ( linguistic competence aspects to fluency p = .001). So, the null hypothesis was was .118, so aspects of linguistic rejected and the research hypothesis competence contributed 11.8% to was accepted. It can be concluded that students’ fluency in speaking. The there was a significant correlation Rsquare of linguistic competence aspects between linguistic competence and to comprehensionr was .090, so aspects speaking performance of English of linguistic competence contributed Education Study Program students of 9% to students’ comprehension in Sriwijaya University Indralaya Campus. speaking. The Rsquare of linguistic Since there was a significant competence aspects to gesture was .044, correlation between linguistic so aspects of linguistic competence competence and speaking performance contributed 4.4% to students’ gesture in (total), the data analysis was continued speaking. by using linier regression to find out The significant level existed if how much the influence of linguistic sig.(α value < .05). All aspects of competence to speaking performance. linguistic competence significantly The analysis was done by using SPSS contributed to speaking performance. version 21 for windows. The There were four aspects of speaking contribution of linguistic competence performance were influenced by can be seen from Rsquare. The Rsquare linguistic competence aspects, that is, is .099, so linguistic competence grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and contributed 9.9 % to the students’ comprehension. The significant level of speaking performance. linguistic competence aspects in grammar was .049 from all aspects of Multiple Regression Analysis linguistic competence. The significant (Partial) level linguistic competence aspects in There were five aspects vocabulary was .043 especially from (phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics was .007. The significant semantics, and pragmatics) of level linguistic competence aspects in linguistics and six aspects fluency was .036 especially from (pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, pragmatics was .009. The significant fluency, comprehension, and gesture) of level linguistic competence aspects in speaking performance, the writer tried comprehension was .016 especially to find out the contribution of from morphology was .013. linguistics competence aspects to speaking performance. DISCUSSION The contribution of linguistic The contribution of linguistic competence aspects can be seen from competence aspects can be seen from Rsquare. linguistic competence aspects to Rsquare. From the table above, the Rsquare pronunciation was .086, so aspects of of linguistic competence aspects to linguistic competence contributed 8.6% pronunciation was .086, so aspects of to students’ pronunciation in speaking. linguistic competence contributed 8.6% The Rsquare of linguistic competence to students’ pronunciation in speaking. aspects to grammar was .110, so aspects The Rsquare of linguistic competence of linguistic competence contributed aspects to grammar was .110, so aspects 11% to students’ grammar in speaking. of linguistic competence contributed The Rsquare of linguistic competence 11% to students’ grammar in speaking. aspects to vocabulary was .113, so The Rsquare of linguistic competence aspects to vocabulary was .113, so students who were in good category of aspects of linguistic competence linguistic competence got the same contributed 11.3% to students’ category on speaking performance. vocabulary in speaking. The Rsquare of Moreover, the students who got poor or linguistic competence aspects to fluency very poor category on linguistic was .118, so aspects of linguistic competence got same category in competence contributed 11.8% to speaking performance. students’ fluency in speaking. The The contribution of linguistic Rsquare of linguistic competence aspects knowledge could be seen from the to comprehensionr was .090, so aspects students’ linguistic competence score. of linguistic competence contributed The best scores of linguistic 9% to students’ comprehension in competence test showed that the speaking. The Rsquare of linguistic students had enough knowledge of competence aspects to gesture was .044, English so that they applied their so aspects of linguistic competence knowledge to their speaking contributed 4.4% to students’ gesture in performance. Consequently, the speaking. students’ performance was influenced The significant level existed if by their linguistic competence. sig.(α value < .05). From Table 4.4, it Two suggestions are offered to the shows that not all aspects of linguistic students (student-teacher) and future competence significantly contributed to researchers. First, to the students, keep speaking performance. There were four up practicing because practice makes aspects of speaking performance were perfect. They also must balance influenced by linguistic competence between possessing knowledge of aspects, that is, grammar, vocabulary, language and mastering of language fluency, and comprehension. The skills. When they possess a certain significant level of linguistic knowledge of language, they should competence aspects in grammar was apply the rules in their language skills. .049 from all aspects of linguistic Second, to future researchers, it is competence. The significant level suggested that they separate the linguistic competence aspects in linguistic aspects to correlate a certain vocabulary was .043 especially from skill. In addition, it is better that future pragmatics was .007. reseachers give a questionnaire to know The significant level linguistic the students’ interested in linguistics competence aspects in fluency was .036 related to certain skill if they would like especially from pragmatics was .009. to correlate knowledge of language to The significant level linguistic language skills, especially speaking competence aspects in comprehension skill. was .016 especially from morphology was .013.

CONCLUSION REFERENCES The result of the test showed that there was not so significant correlation Adekunle, O. O. M., & Aina, M. O. between linguistic competence and (2012).Developing communicative speaking performance of English competence in learners of english Education Study Program students of as a second language. Sriwijaya University. From the data Multidisciplinary Journal of analysis, it could be seen that there was Research Development, 18(1), 1-8. low influence of linguistic competence Retrieved from in speaking performance. Most of the http://www.scribd.com/doc/167298 391/Developing-Communicative- (Bachelor thesis,Masaryk Competence-in-Learners-of- University Brno, Brno). Retrieved English from Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: http://is.muni.cz/.../Low_Speaking_ Oxford University Press. Performance_B Chidambaram, K. (2005).A study on the Kola, S. (2008).The integration of learning process of english by linguistic competence into higher secondary students with . special reference to dharamapuri Linguistic into Communicative district. Language in India, 5. Performance, 1. 10-40. Retrieved Retrieved from from http: http://www.languageinindia.com //www.lcpj.pro/skedaret/137640715 1-LCPJ%201,%20Article%201.pdf Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to research: Planning, conducting, .Cambridge: evaluating, quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Boston, MA: Pearson. O’Grady, W., Dobrovolsky, M., & De Jong, N. H. D., Steinel, M. P., Aronoff, M. (1989).Contemporary linguistics an introduction. New Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Linguistic York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. skills and speaking fluency in a Sugiyono. (2010). Metode penelitian second language.Applied kuantitatif kualitatif dan R&D. , 1-24. Bandung: Alfabeta doi:10.1017/S0142716412000069 Taha, W. A. W., & Reishaan, A. H. K. Denham, K.,& Lobeck, A. (2008). The relationship between (2013).Linguistics for everyone : competence and performance: An introduction (2nd ed.). Boston, Towards a comprehensive TG MA: Wadsworth Cengage grammar. Adab Al – Kufa Journal. Learning.Retrieved from 2. 35-59. Retrieved from http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/L http://www.iasj.net/ inguistic-Competence.htm iasj?func=fulltext&aId=42292 Finch, G. (2003).How to study Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer.(1992). linguistics: A guide to Assessment of bilingual understanding language. New proficiency. In L. Verhoeven & J. York, NY: H. A. L. de Jong (Eds.), The Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. (1993).An constructof language proficiency: introduction to language (5th Applications of psychological ed.).Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt models of language assessment, Brace College Publishers. (pp. 164-166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Fromkin, V. (2000).Linguistics: An Vilímec, E. (2006). Developing introduction to linguistic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell speaking skill (Diploma thesis, Publishing. Retrieved from University of Pardubice, http://www.phil.uu.nl/~mariekes/it0 Pardubice). Retrieved from https://dspace.upce.cz/bitstream/10 8/ Fromkin.pdf 195/21610/1/D16159.pdf Hamerka, V. (2009).Low speaking Wallen, N. E., & Fraenkel, J. R. (1991). performance in learners of English Educational research: A guide to the process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Teaching language ascommunication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

About the Authors Dwi Wahyuni, S.Pd was the graduate of English Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Sriwijaya. Prof. Diemroh Ihsan, Ph.D and Dra.Rita Hayati, M.A are the lecturers at the English Education Study Program, FKIP Universitas Sriwijaya.